Craig v. Cromes

Summary

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of a class action challenging Ohio’s tax-foreclosure and property-forfeiture scheme. The court held that the homeowners’ takings and inverse-condemnation claims had to be pursued through mandamus proceedings, and that Ohio’s tax-foreclosure process did not impose a fine under the Ohio Constitution’s Excessive Fines Clause. The court distinguished Tyler v. Hennepin County because the properties at issue failed to sell at public auction and generated no surplus proceeds.

Holdings

1. A property owner alleging that the government took private property without instituting formal condemnation proceedings must proceed by mandamus to require the government to commence appropriation proceedings; the homeowners' freestanding takings and inverse-condemnation claims were therefore properly dismissed under Civ.R. 12(B)(6).
2. Ohio's tax-foreclosure and forfeiture scheme does not impose a fine within the meaning of the Ohio Constitution's Excessive Fines Clause because the forfeiture is part of a debt-collection system directed at collecting delinquent property taxes rather than punishment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the homeowners could maintain freestanding takings and inverse-condemnation claims arising from Ohio's tax-foreclosure and forfeiture scheme.
2. Whether Ohio's tax-foreclosure and forfeiture scheme imposes a fine within the meaning of the Excessive Fines Clause of the Ohio Constitution.

Disposition

affirmed