Angelo Craig’s property-tax delinquency started with a $620 bill, according to the lawsuit’s description as reported. After Craig failed to pay, Cuyahoga County officials began the process of seizing his house, which the plaintiffs later argued was worth substantially more than the debt. The same pattern is described in the other two homeowners’ cases, involving Angela Taylor in Shaker Heights and Abraham David in Cleveland, court records show.
The class action now before the Ohio Supreme Court focuses on what the county allegedly did after it moved from unpaid property taxes to foreclosure and then sought title to the homes. The plaintiffs say the county “won title” to each of the three properties through legal actions in county court, and that the county kept value they contend exceeded the amount owed. They argue that this “surplus equity” transfer happened without compensation to the people who lost their homes.
The lawsuit’s framing distinguishes between the act of foreclosure and the alleged retention of additional value, because the homeowners are not challenging the foreclosures themselves, the report says. Instead, the case challenges the aftermath: the plaintiffs contend that the county’s process results in the county taking title to properties they say were worth more than the tax debts and leaving the ex-homeowners without proceeds reflecting the surplus.
In court, attorney Ben Flowers wrote that the practice violates provisions of the Ohio Constitution. Flowers argued in the filing that “This practice of taking ‘surplus equity’ violates both the Takings Clause and the Excessive Fines Clause of the Ohio Constitution.” He also wrote that “courts, including the Eighth District below, allow it to persist,” according to the report, adding that the practice is “widespread in Ohio.”
The process described by the plaintiffs starts with Ohio state law allowing counties to foreclose on homeowners who fail to pay property taxes. After foreclosure, counties can auction the homes, keep the money they are owed, and carry any surplus to the next stage, the report says. In the three cases highlighted by the plaintiffs, auctions did not clear the minimum legal sale amounts, the report says, leaving the county to pursue a path in which it could obtain title.
The report says the minimum sale amounts at auction ranged from $12,000 to $27,000, but the homes did not sell under those thresholds. For Craig, property records cited in the report say he bought the house for $5,500 in August 2021. The report also says county officials filed to foreclose in Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas before Craig’s described debt reached a level in which the property owed $12,400, while the fair market value was approximately $45,000 in 2022-23, according to the figures described in the lawsuit.
For Taylor, the report says she lost her house in 2011 after falling behind on property-tax payments and owing about $14,000, while the fair market value was about $90,000 and she did not receive proceeds from any surplus. For David, the report says his debt was $3,384 and that court records show the county’s legal process led to title for the county as part of the foreclosures that the plaintiffs now challenge on the surplus-equity point.
Cuyahoga County spokesperson Jennifer Ciaccia declined to comment on the pending litigation, the report says, and did not provide data on the county’s forfeiture practices. The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in June 2024, and they lost both in the trial court and again at the Eighth District Court of Appeals, according to the report. The Supreme Court’s acceptance means justices will decide the timing of written and oral arguments before ruling.