Background
On June 30, 2022, the Treasurer of Cuyahoga County filed a tax foreclosure action against LaRossa Property Affiliates, Ltd. and The Liberty Holding Group, LLC for $8,629.41 in delinquent taxes. After initial judgment in June 2023 and a partial remand, the magistrate again found for the County in January 2024, ordering the property sold. LaRossa filed a timely appeal on July 21, 2024.
The property was offered for public sale at the sheriff’s sale in October 2024 but received no bids. At LaRossa’s request, the County pulled the property to facilitate mediation in December 2024, but LaRossa failed to appear. After LaRossa filed notice of bankruptcy proceedings, the appellate court granted a stay of execution. However, on June 10, 2025, the court conditioned continued stay on LaRossa posting a $611,830.11 supersedeas bond. LaRossa failed to post this bond.
On July 22, 2025, after the property again failed to sell, it was forfeited to the State of Ohio pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 5723.01. The appellate court separately affirmed the underlying foreclosure order on August 7, 2025, and the Ohio Supreme Court declined further review in September 2025. LaRossa then filed a second notice of appeal on August 11, 2025, arguing the trial court erred in ordering forfeiture and violated statutory requirements.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth District dismissed the appeal as moot. Under Ohio law governing tax foreclosure, property subject to an unpaid tax lien must be forfeited to the State if it remains unsold after being offered for sale twice. Once that forfeiture occurs, the former owner’s property interest terminates and the State takes title. At that point, an appellate court cannot grant any effective relief—even if it were to reverse the foreclosure decree, the property cannot be recovered because it is no longer under the court’s control.
The court acknowledged that R.C. 2329.45 does provide a restitution remedy in some foreclosure cases where a decree is reversed on appeal, but this remedy is available only to appellants who obtained and maintained a stay of execution. LaRossa failed to meet that requirement by not posting the supersedeas bond ordered by the court on June 10, 2025. Because LaRossa could not maintain the stay, the property proceeded to forfeiture, and any appeal thereafter became moot.
The court emphasized established precedent: “An appeal is moot if the appellate court can grant no relief.” Since the property had already been transferred to the State and no remedy remained available, reviewing LaRossa’s assignments of error would be pointless. The judgment was final, the matter was extinguished, and the subject matter was no longer under the court’s control.
Key Takeaways
- Property subject to tax foreclosure must be forfeited to the State under R.C. 5723.01 if unsold after two public offerings for sale.
- To preserve appellate remedies in foreclosure cases, an appellant must obtain and maintain a stay of execution by posting a required supersedeas bond.
- Failure to post a supersedeas bond eliminates the stay and renders a subsequent appeal moot, leaving the appellant with no recourse.
- Once property is forfeited and title transfers to the State, appellate courts lose jurisdiction to grant relief, even if the underlying foreclosure order was erroneous.
- Procedural compliance in tax foreclosure cases is not merely technical—it determines whether appellate rights survive.
Why It Matters
This decision reflects the finality and severity of tax foreclosure procedures. LaRossa had multiple procedural opportunities—timely objections, appearance at mediation, posting a supersedeas bond—but failed at critical junctures. Once the appellate court conditioned the stay on a $611,830.11 bond, that became the gateway to preserving appellate review. The failure to post it was fatal, converting what might have been a reversible error into an unrecoverable loss.
For practitioners representing tax delinquents or property owners in foreclosure actions, the case underscores that appellate rights are not self-executing and that procedural deadlines—particularly the posting of bonds to maintain stays—are not formalities. Once a property is forfeited to the State and the State’s ownership interest vests, the property has left the judicial system, and even appellate reversal cannot restore it. The window for appellate intervention closes swiftly in tax foreclosure cases, and missing it means permanent loss of the property and any appeal rights based on that property.