TARRIFY PROPERTIES, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO - Articles

All Content

TARRIFY PROPERTIES, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

Posted by: Stacey Shrader Joslin on Jun 14, 2022

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Matthew C. De Re, ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C., Chicago, Illinois, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Stephen W. Funk, ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA, Akron, Ohio, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Marc E. Dann, DANN LAW, Lakewood, Ohio, Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C., Chicago, Illinois, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Stephen W. Funk, ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA, Akron, Ohio, for Appellee. Matthew P. Yourkvitch, YOURKVITCH & DIBO, LLC, Cleveland, Ohio, for Amici Curiae.

Judge(s): SUTTON, Chief Judge; COLE and DONALD, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland

SUTTON, Chief Judge. At stake is whether the district court correctly refused to certify a class of owners of foreclosed properties in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, all of whom challenge Ohio’s tax-foreclosure statute as a taking under the federal and state constitutions. While the claimants share a common legal theory—that the targeted Ohio law does not permit them to capture equity in their properties after the county transfers them to a land bank—they do not have a cognizable common theory for measuring the value in each property at the time of transfer. We affirm.

Attachments: