37 F.4th 1101
6th Cir.2022Background
- Ohio law allows counties to foreclose delinquent property taxes either through traditional judicial sale or via a land-bank transfer process that conveys title to an authorized land bank "free and clear" and does not provide a mechanism for owners to recover any surplus equity after transfer.
- The land-bank procedure includes notice, a 28-day redemption period, and a limited option to move the matter to a court of common pleas; it does not require determination of fair market value to effect transfer.
- Tarrify Properties owned an abandoned commercial parcel in Cuyahoga County, did not appear or redeem during Board of Revision proceedings, and the Board transferred the parcel to the county land bank in 2019.
- Tarrify sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging federal and Ohio takings, and moved to certify a Rule 23(b)(3) class of owners whose property fair market value exceeded tax impositions at transfer.
- The district court denied class certification and excluded county tax appraisals; on interlocutory appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed, concluding individualized fair-market-value inquiries defeat ascertainability, predominance, and superiority for the proposed class.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Class certification (ascertainability/predominance/superiority) | Class of owners whose property FMV exceeded tax impositions can be identified and resolved collectively. | Determining FMV at transfer requires individualized, property‑specific inquiries (location, condition, timing) making class treatment infeasible. | Denied: individualized FMV proof prevents ascertainability and predominance; class action is not superior. |
| Admissibility/use of county tax appraisals as proof of FMV | County auditor valuations (six‑year mass appraisals) provide a ready, administrable FMV measure for all class members. | Auditor valuations are rebuttable, mass-appraisal data that do not reliably show FMV at the transfer date for abandoned properties. | Court need not resolve admissibility for class certification; in any event, tax valuations do not cure the individualized-FMV problem. |
| Collateral estoppel / judicial estoppel to bind county to auditor valuations | Board transfer based on auditor valuations precludes county from later disputing that those valuations equal FMV. | The Board did not litigate or decide FMV; statute permits transfers without a FMV finding; positions are not inconsistent. | Rejected: prior Board orders did not actually and necessarily decide FMV (no issue preclusion); judicial estoppel inapplicable. |
| Proposed classwide fixes (special master, subclasses, new mass appraisal) | Judicial devices or new mass-appraisal methods could resolve individualized valuation and allow class treatment. | Such devices would still require numerous mini‑trials and could not reliably capture FMV differences across time, location, and property condition. | Rejected: plaintiff bears burden to show Rule 23 compliance and did not demonstrate any workable classwide method. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrison v. Montgomery County, 997 F.3d 643 (6th Cir. 2021) (reserved federal takings merits and addressed sequencing of class/merits issues)
- Sandusky Wellness Ctr., LLC v. ASD Specialty Healthcare, Inc., 863 F.3d 460 (6th Cir. 2017) (ascertainability and administrative feasibility for class membership)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2011) (predominance requirement for class actions)
- CHKRS, LLC v. City of Dublin, 984 F.3d 483 (6th Cir. 2021) (state‑law issue‑preclusion elements applied by federal courts)
- FirstCal Indus. 2 Acquisitions, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cnty. Bd. of Revision, 929 N.E.2d 426 (Ohio 2010) (auditor assessments create a rebuttable/default valuation for tax purposes)
- United States v. Certain Parcels of Land in Arlington, 261 F.2d 287 (4th Cir. 1958) (tax assessments generally inadmissible to prove FMV in condemnation)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (U.S. 2001) (doctrine of judicial estoppel requires clearly inconsistent positions to prevent unfair detriment)