Brown, J.
Dr. James A. Crowe and Phyllis Lynn Crowe appeal the denial of their motion for relief from judgment following the trial court’s order to issue tax deeds. We reverse and remand.
….
The Crowes argue that the Indiana Supreme Court recognized the public health emergency relating to the coronavirus in an emergency order, USPS altered its signature requirement for certified mail, return receipt requested, in response to the virus, and the mail carrier did not follow the modified customer signature procedure required by USPS. They also argue that, because Lynn received information from the Auditor’s office which led her to believe that all of the outstanding property taxes had been paid, they did not expect to receive further tax notices. They maintain that, under these circumstances, equity must prevent the injustice of losing their home and request thirty days to redeem their property. Savvy asserts that its notices “were signed for” and “[i]t is irrelevant who signed for these certified notices.” Appellee’s Brief at 17-18. It contends it also mailed the notices to the Crowes by first-class mail and argues that USPS’s altered signature requirements for certified mail did not deprive the Crowes of due process.
Ind. Trial Rule 60(B) provides in part that, “[o]n motion and upon such terms as are just the court may relieve a party . . . from a judgment . . . for the following reasons: . . . (6) the judgment is void . . . ,” or “(8) any reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment, other than those reasons set forth in subparagraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4).” A movant filing a motion for reason (8) must allege a meritorious claim or defense. A motion made under Rule 60(B) is addressed to the equitable discretion of the trial court….
Ind. Code § 6-1.1-25-4.5 provides that a purchaser is entitled to a tax deed only if the purchaser gives notice of the sale to the owner of record at the time of the sale and any person with a substantial property interest of public record in the real property. The notice must be sent “by certified mail, return receipt requested,” to the property owner at the owner’s last address as indicated in the records of the county auditor. Ind. Code § 6-1.1-25-4.5. “Certified mail” is generally defined as “Mail for which the sender requests proof of delivery in the form of a receipt signed by the addressee” and “The receipt (a green card, which is usu. referred to as such) must be signed before the mail will be delivered. — Also termed certified mail, return receipt requested.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1096 (10th ed. 2014). Ind. Code § 6-1.1-25-4.6 provides that a purchaser shall file a petition with the trial court requesting the court to direct the county auditor to issue a tax deed if the property was not redeemed from the sale and that notice of the filing of the petition shall be given to the same parties as provided in Ind. Code § 6-1.1-25-4.5. A person may, upon appeal, defeat the title conveyed by a tax deed if the notices required by Ind. Code §§ 6-1.1-25-4.5 and -4.6 were not in substantial compliance with the manner prescribed in those sections. Ind. Code § 6-1.1-25-16. Further, to comply with due process, while actual notice is not required, a purchaser must provide notice which is reasonably calculated under all the circumstances to inform the interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present any objections. See Ind. Land Tr. Co. v. XL Invest. Props., LLC, 155 N.E.3d 1177, 1184 (Ind. 2020); S&C Fin. Grp., LLC v. Khan, 172 N.E.3d 280, 288 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), reh’g denied, trans. denied. See also Tax Certificate Invs., Inc. v. Smethers, 714 N.E.2d 131, 134 (Ind. 1999) (“Notice is constitutionally adequate when ‘the practicalities and peculiarities of the case . . . are reasonably met.’”) (citing Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314-315, 70 S. Ct. 652 (1950)).
On March 16, 2020, the Indiana Supreme Court issued an order providing that Governor Holcomb had declared a public health emergency in Indiana relating to the 2019 coronavirus, President Trump had declared a national emergency, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had determined that social distancing was necessary to minimize further spread of the virus. See Matter of Admin. Rule 17 Emergency Relief for Indiana Trial Cts. Relating to 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19), No. 20S-CB-123, 141 N.E.3d 388 (Ind. March 16, 2020). USPS issued a “COVID-19 Continuity of Operations Update” in March 2020 providing:
A number of cases of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) have recently been confirmed across the country.
The safety and well-being of our employees & customers is our highest priority. To help ensure the health of our employees & customers, we are continuing to follow recommended guidance and strategies from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and local health departments, and are implementing additional measures to help maintain social distancing.
….
Here, the Crowes presented testimony that they did not receive notice regarding their right to redeem the property following the 2020 tax sale or Savvy’s request for tax deeds and that their signatures did not appear on the certified mail receipts. They further testified that no mail carrier knocked on their door in 2020 or 2021 or identified them as recipients of the return receipt requested mail. We note that the return receipts do not contain the first initial and last name of Dr. Crowe or Lynn and that there was no notation whatsoever relating that a specific individual received the notices. Thus, it appears that USPS protocol, requiring that the postal carrier ask the addressee’s first initial and last name to confirm receipt by the proper recipient, was not followed. The Crowes also testified that they had not received certain mail at their home during the prior two years, they would have redeemed the property if they had received the notices as they had done previously, and they were not expecting any notices because they believed the taxes had been paid and made current when Lynn visited the Auditor and they did not receive any property tax statements. We also note Dr. Crowe’s testimony that the property, which was their residence since 1998, had a fair market value of approximately $2.1 million and the only debt was a home equity loan of approximately $66,000, and the tax sale certificates indicate the parcels sold for $1.7 million less at $394,994.
Under these circumstances, equity and due process require that we reverse the denial of the Crowes’ motion for relief from judgment and remand to provide them with thirty days to redeem the parcels.
Reversed and remanded.
Altice, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.