Legal Opinion · Dissent

Elizondo v. Read

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided March 23, 1992No. 50S04-9203-CV-189Published

1DissentGivan, Justice

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. Although Ind.Code § 6-1.1-24-4.2 (repealed 1989; mow see § 6-1.1-24-3) was passed after the completion of the facts governing Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams (1983), 462 U.S. 791, 103 S.Ct. 2706, 77 L.Ed.2d 180, the law set forth in Mennonite is applicable to the facts in the case at bar.

When the State undertakes to acquire real estate because of delinquent taxes, they should be required to follow any reasonable investigation to assure that all interested parties are notified of the pending tax sale. Real estate is too valuable an asset…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Mennonite Board of Missions v. AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Elizondo v. ReadIndiana Court of Appeals · 1990
  3. Elizondo v. ReadIndiana Court of Appeals · 1990

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API