Fortney v. McQuillen, 2019 Ohio 4941

Plaintiff Gary Fortney filed a class action (June 12, 2018) against the Ashland County Treasurer and Board of Commissioners, alleging county policy failed to pro-rate current-year real estate taxes at judicial (sheriff) sales, causing buyers to pay overlapping taxes twice.
Fortney purchased multiple foreclosure-sale properties between 2013 and 2018 and alleges each purchase price included pro-rated tax amounts, yet the county later billed him for full-year taxes.
County officials admitted that, prior to Local Rule 19.06(B)(4) effective January 1, 2018, they did not deduct pro-rated current-year taxes from sale proceeds and followed a longstanding non-prorating practice.
Trial court denied defendants’ 12(B)(6) motion, later granted summary judgment for defendants on grounds of res judicata and R.C. 2723.01’s one-year limitation for tax-recovery claims, and denied class certification as moot.
Appellate court: affirmed summary judgment only as to tax collections occurring more than one year before the complaint (i.e., before June 12, 2017); reversed as to taxes collected on or after June 12, 2017; reversed the denial of class certification (remanded for further proceedings).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata bars Fortney’s unjust enrichment claim	Fortney: claim arises from county’s later collection of full-year taxes (after confirmations), so it was not litigable in the underlying foreclosure cases	County: sale-confirmation orders resolved tax discharge, so Fortney could have appealed and res judicata bars relitigation	Court: res judicata does not bar unjust enrichment because the alleged unjust enrichment (tax collections) occurred after confirmations and could not have been litigated earlier
Whether R.C. 2723.01 one-year limitation applies to recovery of allegedly unlawfully collected taxes	Fortney: county’s conduct not "illegal"; unjust enrichment governed by six-year limitation	County: R.C. 2723.01 governs recovery of unlawfully collected taxes and imposes a one-year limit from collection	Court: R.C. 2723.01 applies; claims are time-barred if taxes were collected more than one year before filing, but claims for taxes collected within one year of filing survive
Whether trial court properly denied class certification as moot	Fortney: class certification should be considered because many class members may have timely claims	County: summary judgment disposed of claims, making certification moot	Court: denial as moot was error because some claims survived summary judgment; remand for class-certification proceedings

Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (1995) (defines elements and scope of res judicata)
Ryan v. Tracy, 6 Ohio St.3d 363 (1983) (R.C. 2723.01 is the exclusive remedy for recovery of erroneously collected taxes)
Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 (1987) (summary-judgment review on appeal is de novo)
Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 106 Ohio St.3d 278 (2005) (explains unjust enrichment and restitution as remedy)