Harrison v. Montgomery County Ohio, 482 F.Supp.3d 652

Background

Plaintiff Alana Harrison (one-half interest holder) failed to pay real estate taxes on an "abandoned" parcel; Montgomery County Treasurer initiated an administrative foreclosure under Ohio Rev. Code §§ 323.65–323.79.
The Montgomery County Board of Revision issued an Adjudication of Foreclosure, Finding of Fact as to Value, and an order directing sheriff to transfer the property to the Montgomery County Land Reutilization Corporation under § 323.78 after the alternative (28‑day) redemption period.
Harrison received the summons/complaint and filed an answer but did not: (a) move to transfer the matter to the court of common pleas under §§ 323.69/.70, (b) redeem or pay taxes, (c) pursue a timely administrative appeal under § 323.79, or (d) exercise the statutory right of redemption.
Harrison sued in federal court under § 1983, alleging a Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment taking and an Ohio constitutional taking (Art. I, § 19), seeking monetary damages; County moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, res judicata, and failure to state a claim.
The Court concluded federal jurisdiction is not barred by the Tax Injunction Act/comity for this transfer mechanism but dismissed Harrison’s federal takings claim on res judicata grounds (prior final administrative order that Harrison failed to appeal or transfer).
The Court also dismissed the Ohio constitutional claim because Ohio law provides mandamus (not a damages suit) as the proper remedy for an involuntary taking under state law.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal court jurisdiction is barred by the Tax Injunction Act / comity	Harrison relies on Knick to bring § 1983 takings claim in federal court	County argues TIA/comity restrict federal review of state tax foreclosure scheme	Court: TIA/comity do not bar review here because transfer is not a tax collection act; federal jurisdiction otherwise available under Knick
Whether res judicata bars the federal takings claim	Harrison contends claim ripened only after title transfer and thus could not have been litigated earlier	County: final Board of Revision order was appealable under § 323.79 but Harrison failed to appeal or transfer, so claim is precluded	Court: Res judicata applies—final administrative order and Harrison had opportunity to litigate via transfer/appeal, so federal claim barred
Ripeness / effect of Knick on this claim	Harrison relies on Knick to establish a timely federal takings cause of action	County argues procedural preclusion (res judicata) still bars relitigation despite Knick	Court: Knick permits federal takings claims, but res judicata still precludes Harrison’s suit because she had an available state remedy and failed to pursue it
Proper remedy for alleged Ohio constitutional taking	Harrison seeks damages under Article I, § 19 of Ohio Constitution	County: Ohio provides mandamus as the exclusive remedy for involuntary taking; no private damages action	Court: State-law takings claim dismissed—mandamus in state court is the proper remedy, not a damages suit in federal court

Key Cases Cited

Knick v. Township of Scott, 139 S. Ct. 2162 (U.S. 2019) (property owner may bring federal § 1983 takings claim in federal court when government takes property without just compensation)
Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1985) (ripeness framework for regulatory takings; later clarified/overruled in part by Knick)
Direct Mktg. Ass'n v. Brohl, 575 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2015) (interpretation of Tax Injunction Act and "collection" activity)
Chippewa Trading Co. v. Cox, 365 F.3d 538 (6th Cir. 2004) (comity limits on federal courts' review of state tax administration)
Grava v. Parkman Twp., 653 N.E.2d 226 (Ohio 1995) (elements and purpose of res judicata under Ohio law)
State ex rel. Estate of Miles v. Village of Piketon, 903 N.E.2d 311 (Ohio 2009) (limits on applying res judicata when fairness requires exception)
Federated Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394 (U.S. 1981) (res judicata promotes finality and judicial efficiency)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (plaintiff bears burden to establish standing/subject-matter jurisdiction)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (application of pleading standard)