2022 Ohio 1467
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Hamilton County Treasurer filed a tax-foreclosure against Kenneth Shane Scott in May 2016; property sold April 27, 2017, producing $12,700 in proceeds.
- After paying costs and taxes, $5,073.07 was ordered held by the clerk of courts "until further order of the court." Those excess proceeds were deposited June 29, 2017.
- Certified-mail notices about the excess proceeds were returned unclaimed; regular-mail notices followed. Treasurer moved in August 2020 under R.C. 5721.20 to forfeit unclaimed excess to the county.
- A magistrate granted Treasurer’s motion, finding more than three years had passed without a claim; Scott objected, asserting he never received notice and that the statutory three-year period never began because funds remained with the clerk.
- At the hearing, county officials testified that the clerk holds excess funds under an oral practice and moves funds to the treasury only by court/order; the trial court found Scott did not receive notice and, on due-process grounds, rejected forfeiture and granted Scott the funds.
- On appeal the court affirmed: it limited review to the due-process notice issue, found the appellant failed to supply transcripts necessary for review (so prior proceedings are presumed regular), and agreed that due process required notice of the excess funds and Scott did not receive it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether excess proceeds were automatically forfeited to the county under R.C. 5721.20 after three years | Treasurer: statute mandates automatic forfeiture after three years from county receipt, so funds should have been forfeited | Scott: statute’s forfeiture presumes transfer to county treasury; funds remained with clerk and no statutory process was completed | Court limited statutory question, did not order automatic forfeiture; focused on due process and affirmed trial court granting Scott the funds |
| Whether Scott received constitutionally adequate notice of the excess proceeds | Treasurer: statutory notice not expressly required beyond foreclosure notice and Treasurer provided mailed notice; argues forfeiture should apply | Scott: he did not receive notice of the excess proceeds and so was not on notice of the three-year claim period | Trial court found Scott did not receive notice; appellate court affirmed (presuming regularity of omitted earlier proceedings) and held due process required notice before forfeiture |
Key Cases Cited
- Cent. Trust Co., N.A. v. Jensen, 67 Ohio St.3d 140 (Ohio 1993) (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard before deprivation of property)
- Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (notice must be reasonably calculated to inform interested parties of proceedings affecting their property)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
- Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (Ohio 1980) (appellant bears burden to provide transcript; missing transcript requires presumption of regularity)