A Franklin County Appeals Court panel upheld a lower court’s dismissal of a Philadelphia real estate buyer’s motion to compel Franklin County Sheriff Dallas Baldwin to set deposit amounts on properties subject to foreclosure auctions at the amounts prescribed in R.C. 2329.211.
The three-judge panel affirmed the Franklin County Common Pleas Court ruling which rendered moot Scott Siegelman’s claim for relief.
Siegelman, a Pennsylvania resident, is an officer of the Wyoming-registered Transform Properties LLC, which is on file with the Ohio secretary of state.
“The trial court properly dismissed the petition and entered judgment in favor of the sheriff,” Tenth District Court of Appeals Judge Michael Mentel wrote for the 3-0 panel. “However, we affirm the judgment not because Mr. Siegelman failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, but because Mr. Siegelman alleged no legally cognizable injury or beneficial interest to demonstrate the standing necessary to petition the trial court for relief in mandamus.”
According to case background, Siegelman filed the petition in the trial court on Nov. 17, 2022, alleging that the sheriff’s office did not comply with R.C. 2329.211 — a statute governing the amount a purchaser other than a judgment creditor must deposit at a foreclosure auction of residential property — when conducting sales of property sold to satisfy tax debts.
The statute prescribes deposit amounts ranging from $2,000 to $10,000, depending on the appraised value of the property, summary detailed.
Siegelman alleged that he had contacted the sheriff’s office to inform personnel that the office’s practices did not conform to the statute, but representatives “refused to alter their practice.”
He filed as an exhibit a list of properties with deposit requirements in excess of what R.C. 2329.211 would have allowed, based on the appraisals of the Franklin County auditor.
He also filed email correspondence with a representative from the Franklin County Prosecutor’s Office Tax Unit.
The Franklin County prosecutor filed a motion to dismiss Siegelman’s petition Dec. 16, 2022, on the basis that the sheriff’s office had complied with the statute when it listed the deposit requirements for all properties.
Additionally, the prosecutor pointed to R.C. 2329.22, which states: “All lands, the property of individuals, indebted to the state for debt, taxes or in any other manner shall be sold without valuation for the discharge of such debt or taxes.”
The prosecutor noted that because property sold for tax debt is sold without valuation, the deposit requirements of R.C. 2329.211 based on appraisal values did not apply.
Siegelman argued that the prosecutor falsely represented that the sheriff’s deposits were in line with the statute.
The summary provided that he failed to respond to the prosecutor’s argument that, as property sold without valuation for tax debt, the statute did not apply to the properties in question.
The trial court granted the motion to dismiss Sept. 24, 2023, prompting Siegelman’s appeal.
“Mr. Siegelman’s allegations do not establish the beneficial interest necessary to confer standing as a relator in this action,” Mentel wrote. “The only allegation he makes relevant to that question is that he has a clear legal right in mandamus because he ‘participates in Sheriff sales in Ohio,’ but this is wholly inadequate to demonstrate any benefit or injury that justifies invoking the original jurisdiction of the trial court.”
The judge noted that Siegelman failed to indicate that he participates in sales operated by the Franklin County sheriff’s office.
“Even under the generous standard of notice pleading, there is no possible theory of relief where no injury is alleged,” Mentel continued. “He does not even allege that he actually attempted to purchase or bid on a property at an auction run by the sheriff, or taken any action relevant to the deposit amounts required, other than to complain in emails to county officials.”
Presiding Judge Terri Jamison and Tenth District Judge Laurel Beatty Blunt joined Mentel’s opinion.