Bradford, J.
Case Summary
As of March of 2018, Verna McIntosh owned a South Bend house (“the Property”) but had become delinquent on its property taxes. That month, Anthony Rose purchased a tax-sale certificate for the Property from St. Joseph County, which he assigned to Pinch-N-Post, LLC. Pinch-N-Post sent notice to McIntosh pursuant to Indiana Code section 6-1.1-25-4.5 (“the 4.5 Notice”), which notice included the components of the redemption amount. McIntosh did not redeem the Property, and, in July of 2018, Pinch-N-Post petitioned for the issuance of a tax deed to the Property. Following a hearing, the trial court denied Pinch-N-Post’s petition on the basis that its 4.5 Notice had greatly overstated the amount McIntosh would have to pay to redeem the Property. The trial court also ordered that Pinch-N-Post be refunded the amount that its winning bid exceeded McIntosh’s tax obligation. Pinch-N-Post claims that the trial court’s finding that the 4.5 Notice inflated the redemption amount is clearly erroneous and that the trial court erred in refusing to refund all of the purchase money or, alternatively, ordering a new redemption period. Because we agree with McIntosh that the 4.5 Notice would have led a reasonable person to conclude that the total redemption amount was far greater than it actually was, we affirm that portion of the trial court’s order. However, we agree with Pinch-N-Post that the trial court should have ordered a new redemption period. Consequently, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.
….
We agree with McIntosh that the 4.5 Notice failed to substantially comply with the relevant statutes. Put simply, the 4.5 Notice explicitly listed the $4679.29 overbid as a component of the redemption amount—which is simply not true— an inclusion likely to create the false impression that the cost of redemption was far higher than it actually was. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that this was the whole point, as there is nothing anywhere in the relevant statutes that even remotely justifies including the overbid in the redemption amount.
….
In the end, we believe that the 4.5 Notice asked McIntosh to jump through too many hoops to discover the true redemption amount, a situation that only existed because Pinch-N-Post—misleadingly and without justification— included the overbid in the first place. When we consider “the practicalities and peculiarities” of a tax-sale case, Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314, we conclude that a 4.5 Notice that is very likely to leave a reasonable person with the false and misleading impression that the redemption amount includes the overbid does not substantially comply with the notice requirements of Indiana Code subsection 6-1.1-24-6.1(b).[Footnote omitted.] See Peterson v. Warner, 478 N.E.2d 692, 695 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985) (concluding that tax deed was invalid where purchaser sent notice of tax sale (when notice of redemption was appropriate), stating that “not only was the notice improper in form but it also contained substantially misleading information concerning facts crucial to [the owner]”).
….
Indiana Code section 6-1.1-25-4.6 governs petitions for the issuance of tax deeds and describes the consequences of certain failures by the tax-deed petitioner at various points in the process, including the failure to provide adequate 4.5 Notice…
…Of interest to us is subsection (j), which concerns the consequences for noncompliance with the provisions of Indiana Code section 6-1.1-25-4.5. The one point on which subsection (j) is clear is that there is to be no refund of purchase money to the petitioner. We conclude, then, that the trial court erred in ordering the return of the overbid to Pinch-N-Post.4 That said, subsection (j) does not explicitly explain what is to be done with the purchase money or if the tax-sale certificate remains valid. As mentioned, if a statute is ambiguous we must ascertain the legislature’s intent and interpret the statute so as to effectuate that intent. See, e.g., Elmer Buchta Trucking, 744 N.E.2d at 942. We believe that subsection (j), read in conjunction with the rest of Indiana Code section 6-1.1-25-4.6 and Indiana Code article 6-1.1, provides us with sufficient guidance to discern the General Assembly’s intent.
….
…We believe that the most reasonable interpretation of subsection (j) is that the General Assembly intended to leave underlying tax sales intact in cases where the only problem is that the 4.5 Notice was inadequate. Consequently, the trial court erred in apparently voiding the underlying tax sale of the Property.
We are left only with the question of what is to happen going forward. To recap, the St. Joseph County Treasurer holds Pinch-N-Post’s purchase money, and Pinch-N-Post holds a valid tax-sale certificate, which is precisely the positions those entities occupied directly after the issuance of the tax-sale certificate. In other words, the General Assembly has returned the parties and the county to the beginning of the 120-day redemption period. The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that the General Assembly intended the consequence of an inadequate 4.5 Notice to be a second chance for the owner to redeem the property before a tax deed can be issued. As such, we remand with instructions to order a new 120-day redemption period, with 4.5 Notice to be given not later than ninety days after the order. [Footnote omitted.]
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
Crone, J., concurs.
Tavitas, Judge concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion.
I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part. I agree with the analysis of Section I that Pinch-N-Post failed to provide a proper 4.5 Notice. I part ways, however, with the majority regarding the impact of the improper 4.5 Notice, which is discussed in Section II.
….
The trial court here found that Pinch-N-Post’s 4.5 Notice was inadequate where it overstated the redemption amount by “a magnitude of almost 50%.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 46. The trial court then ordered the return of the tax sale surplus amount of $4,679.29 to Pinch-N-Post. The majority agrees that the 4.5 Notice was inadequate but allows Pinch-N-Post a second chance to send a proper 4.5 Notice. I conclude that, under Indiana Code Section 6-1.1-25-4.6(j), Pinch-N-Post is not entitled to such a second chance.
….
I also agree that subsection (j), which applies when the notice provisions of 4.5 are not met and the “sale is otherwise valid” is applicable here. I.C. § 6-1.1-25- 4.6(j). Where subsection (j) applies, “the court shall not order the return of the purchase price or any part of the purchase price . . . .” Id. Consequently, it is clear to me that Pinch-N-Post is not entitled to the return of any part of its purchase price. The majority, however, concludes that “the General Assembly did not intend the failure of a 4.5 Notice to result in, effectively, a 100% penalty to be paid into the county general fund.” I believe that is exactly what subsection (j) requires.
….