Massa, J.
Savvy IN, LLC challenges the Court of Appeals’ decision granting James and Phyllis Crowe additional time to redeem their properties. Savvy IN argues their certified and first-class mailed notice letters, which notified the Crowes that the company purchased their properties at a tax sale, satisfy the minimum requirements under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and Indiana law. Because we find Savvy IN’s notice letters met these minimum requirements, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the Crowes’ Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(6) motion.
….
Here, Savvy IN argues that it provided sufficient notice, and that the appellate opinion below departs from both this Court’s decision in Indiana Land Trust Company v. XL Investment Properties, LLC, 155 N.E.3d 1177 (Ind. 2020), and the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006). We agree and find Savvy IN complied with federal due process and state statutory requirements and thus affirm the trial court’s denial of the Crowes’ Trial Rule 60(B)(6) motion.
I. Savvy IN’s notices to the Crowes satisfy due process.
….
Our present case requires a balancing of interests between two private parties, see Jones, 547 U.S. at 229 (citing Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314), one party seeking to obtain property purchased through a tax sale and one party seeking to keep their property, which was delinquent in taxes. See M & M Inv. Grp., 994 N.E.2d at 1118 (“Each class of interest merits its own analysis.”). We do not conduct an inquiry into whether the Crowes actually received the notice they claim not to have received, but instead inquire whether Savvy IN acted “as one desirous of actually informing” the Crowes that their property was sold at the tax sale and the tax deeds had issued. See Sawmill Creek, 964 N.E.2d at 219; see also Mennonite Bd. of Missions, 462 U.S. at 800 (explaining that “[n]otice by mail or other means as certain to ensure actual notice” to any interested party who would be adversely affected by a proceeding is a “minimum constitutional precondition” to such a proceeding).
In February 2021, Savvy IN sent notice letters via certified mail to the Crowes, informing them of their purchase. The certified mail return receipt noted the letter was delivered on “2-17” with “HVHR2C79” or “HVHR2C-19” in the signature line. Savvy IN also mailed a copy of the notice letter to the Crowes via first-class United States mail. And unlike in Sawmill Creek and Land Trust, the certified mail was not returned undelivered and neither was the first-class mail. Cf. Sawmill Creek, 954 N.E.2d at 215; Land Trust, 155 N.E.3d at 1181. After the redemption period passed, Savvy IN petitioned for tax deeds to be issued and mailed the notice of the verified petition to the Crowes via certified and first-class mail. The certified mail receipt states the date of delivery was “12–13– [indecipherable year],” with lines drawn through the signatory’s name and signature line accompanied by an indecipherable signature. Neither the certified mail nor the first-class mail was returned to Savvy IN as undelivered. The Crowes did not present contrary evidence, and since none of the mailed notice letters were returned to Savvy IN marked undeliverable, Savvy IN was not required to take “additional reasonable steps.” Jones, 547 U.S. at 234. As we explained in Land Trust, absent such evidence, Savvy IN is not constitutionally required to speculate whether notice was sufficient because the mailings indicate actual delivery at the Crowes’ address. 155 N.E.3d at 1189. And because the Constitution does not require further actions when notice letters are not returned undeliverable, see id., Savvy IN’s actions meet the federal constitutional threshold under the Fourteenth Amendment.
II. Savvy IN’s certified and first-class mailed notice letters also satisfy Indiana law.
….
Here, Savvy IN presented evidence to the trial court with its petition for a tax deed that it mailed, by certified return receipt requested and first-class mail, the two required notices for each parcel. Id. §§ 6-1.1-25-4.5, -4.6. The first notice Savvy IN sent to the Crowes was mailed via certified mail, return receipt requested, notifying the Crowes that the Properties were purchased at the tax sale, the redemption period expired on October 5, 2021, and they intended to petition for a tax deed on or after October 6, 2021. See id. § 6-1.1-25-4.5. Savvy IN received the return receipt, which indicated delivery was made on “2-17.” Savvy IN also mailed a copy of the notice to the Crowes via first-class mail. The redemption period came and went without payment, and Savvy petitioned for the tax deeds of the Properties.
The second required statutory notice was sent to the Crowes via certified and first-class mail, notifying them that Savvy IN petitioned the court for the Properties’ tax deeds. See id. § 6-1.1-25-4.6. The certified return receipt revealed delivery was made on “12-13-[indecipherable year],” with lines drawn through the signatory’s name and an indecipherable signature. Once again, neither the certified mail nor the first-class mail was returned to Savvy IN as undeliverable. Yet the Crowes argued they did not receive any notices, rendering the judgment and the tax deeds void. But none of the four mailings, either certified mail or first-class mail, that Savvy IN sent to the Crowes’ mailing address were returned marked undeliverable, confirming the notices were delivered and that no additional reasonable steps needed to be taken. Land Trust, 155 N.E.3d at 1188 (noting that, if both certified and first-class mail are returned to the sender, then an auditor need only take “an additional reasonable step if practical”). “Failure by an owner to receive or accept the notice required . . . does not affect the validity of the judgment and order.” I.C. § 6-1.1-24-4(a).
Conclusion
Savvy IN’s mailed notices satisfied the constitutional and statutory requirements, and it is thus entitled to the tax deeds issued by the trial court. The trial court is affirmed.
Rush, C.J., and Slaughter, Goff, and Molter, JJ., concur.