State ex rel. US Bank Trust, N.A. v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision (2023)
Citation: 2023-Ohio-1063 · Court: Supreme Court of Ohio · Decided: April 4, 2023
The Ohio Supreme Court’s modern statement that the state’s expedited board-of-revision (BOR) tax foreclosure of abandoned land supplies constitutionally adequate process, and that a party who acquires its interest after the foreclosure is adjudicated lacks standing to undo it. It is the state-court counterweight to the federal takings line (harrison-v-montgomery-county, tyler-v-hennepin-county) and a key authority on the finality of Ohio’s ohio administrative tax-foreclosure track.
Facts
US Bank Trust, N.A., acquired mortgages on several abandoned, tax-delinquent properties in Cuyahoga County more than one year after the county’s Board of Revision had already adjudicated tax foreclosures against those parcels under Ohio’s expedited abandoned-land procedure (R.C. Chapter 323). The bank then sought writs of mandamus to challenge the completed foreclosure proceedings and to enforce or protect its mortgage interests.
Holding
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the writs. It held that a mortgage holder that did not acquire its mortgage until one year after the adjudication of the tax foreclosure lacks standing to challenge the foreclosure proceedings. The court further held that mandamus was unavailable because the bank had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law through the statutory mechanisms in R.C. Chapter 323 (the expedited-foreclosure scheme’s own redemption, transfer to the court of common pleas, and appeal provisions). The expedited BOR foreclosure scheme was upheld as providing adequate process.
Reasoning
- Standing. A party that acquires its interest after the foreclosure has been adjudicated was not a party whose rights were cut off by that adjudication and cannot belatedly attack it.
- Adequacy of the statutory scheme. The R.C. Chapter 323 expedited-foreclosure process — with its redemption window, mechanism to transfer a contested case to the common pleas court, and right of appeal — affords interested parties due process and an adequate legal remedy, so the extraordinary writ of mandamus does not lie.
Practical impact
- For operators / mortgagees: Diligence must occur before a BOR adjudication. A lien or mortgage acquired after the foreclosure is adjudicated will generally not support a challenge to the foreclosure, and mandamus is not a workaround for missing the statutory windows.
- For the Tyler debate: This decision signals Ohio’s state-court willingness to uphold the process of its expedited scheme. It does not resolve the separate federal surplus-equity / takings question driven by tyler-v-hennepin-county and harrison-v-montgomery-county — process adequacy and surplus retention are distinct issues.
- For title: Reinforces the finality of an adjudicated BOR foreclosure as against later-acquired interests, relevant to void-vs-voidable and quiet-title analysis.
Good-law status
Still good law. Decided April 4, 2023; not overruled or limited as of
last_verified 2026-06-02. Note the limited scope: it addresses standing and the
adequacy of the foreclosure process, not the constitutionality of retaining
surplus equity under Tyler.
Why it matters
It is the Ohio Supreme Court’s endorsement of the expedited board-of-revision foreclosure as procedurally sound and final, while leaving the surplus-equity takings question to the federal cases — defining the line between “the process was adequate” and “the windfall may still be an unconstitutional taking.”
Related authorities
- harrison-v-montgomery-county — federal § 1983 takings route for surplus equity in Ohio land-bank transfers.
- tyler-v-hennepin-county — Supreme Court: surplus-equity retention is a taking.
- in-re-foreclosure-of-liens-2014 — who may redeem in an Ohio tax foreclosure.
Applies in →
ohio (binding statewide).
Legal information, not legal advice. This page summarizes a court decision for educational purposes and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Verify against the primary opinion and consult a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction before acting. Last verified 2026-06-02.