Buckeye Institute joins legal fight against Cuyahoga County’s home seizures

The Buckeye Institute has filed an amicus brief on behalf of three single-family homeowners in the Cleveland area who have become central to a legal challenge against Cuyahoga County’s tax foreclosure practices.

The filing, submitted on behalf of plaintiffs Angelo D. Craig, Angela Taylor and Abraham David, argues the County’s practices constitute unconstitutional “home equity theft,” after the plaintiffs’ homes were seized to satisfy modest tax debts that ballooned due to County practices.

According to court documents, Craig’s home at 8819 Saint Catherine Ave. in Cleveland was assessed a fair market value of about $45,000, but was forfeited after an initial $620.97 in delinquent taxes. Due to the County’s practices, that initial amount quickly ballooned into roughly $12,400, including penalties, 12% annual interest, accruing taxes and foreclosure costs, resulting in a minimum bid of $12,169.83 at auction.

Taylor’s residence on Pennington Road in Shaker Heights was valued at more than $90,000 against $4,654.62 in tax debt, plus “all taxes, assessments, penalties, and interest accruing between the date of the delinquent tax certificate and the date of the confirmation of the Sheriff’s sale.” The property was ordered to be sold at auction for a minimum bid of $17,718.79.

David’s Eddy Road property in Cleveland was valued at around $34,000 against $3,383.68 in debt, and was ordered to be sold at public auction for the minimum bid of $27,322.34. In each case, the homes failed to sell at two public auctions and were forfeited to the state or a land reutilization entity under Ohio law, with no compensation for the amounts exceeding the tax debt.

While Ohio state law permits foreclosure as a means of recouping delinquent property taxes, Cuyahoga County has “dwarfed” other regions in tax foreclosures, driven by aggressive fee structures and enforcement practices. According to the county’s website, “…foreclosure rates in Cuyahoga County have dwarfed those in other areas of the state. For too many residents of Cuyahoga County and Ohio, foreclosure remains a very real fear.”

As of late 2025, the county recorded over $248 million in unpaid taxes on about 25,000 parcels, with thousands of properties annually entering foreclosure or forfeiture processes. Practices include bulk sales of tax lien certificates to private investors and expedited transfers of vacant or abandoned properties to land banks, contributing to large-scale equity retention in non-sale scenarios.

Critics have frequently stated that high property tax rates are driving them out of their homes, while pointing specifically to the county’s urban density, economic challenges and policies that prioritize revenue recovery over surplus return as factors exacerbating seizure volumes.

As Ohio’s Supreme Court has yet to intervene, this week, the Buckeye Institute, a Columbus think tank, came to the defense of Cuyahoga County homeowners, urging the court to hear the case and halt these practices.

“On July 22, 1796, Moses Cleaveland arrived with his surveying party at the mouth of the Cuyahoga River to lay out the plat map for the property where, 213 years later, the plaintiffs in this case would live,” said Jay R. Carson, senior litigator at The Buckeye Institute.

“While Cleaveland could not have foreseen what those plat-lines would become, he would have understood that the government cannot pocket the profits from the sale of property seized to settle a tax debt.”

The brief argues the Takings Clause in the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions is unconditional and “categorical,” rooted in American jurisprudence, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, and antifeudal doctrines that date back to the Magna Carta

It contends that a just government must provide just compensation for surplus equity when taking property, even in forfeitures without auction sales, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Tyler v. Hennepin County. Even homesteaders of Cuyahoga County, the brief states, “would have understood the takings clause to plainly encompass the right to recover the surplus value—or equity—of their property’s value if their property was foreclosed on and sold to settle a tax debt.”

The case, filed as an appeal to a lower court’s dismissal, now hinges upon whether the Ohio Supreme Court accepts discretionary jurisdiction. The case will proceed to the merits only if the court agrees to hear the appeal.