Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the appellant contested a judgment from the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas which ordered the forfeiture of his property to Tax Ease Ohio, LLC, pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 5721.40. The proceedings were initiated by a foreclosure complaint filed on January 8, 2016, after which the appellant failed to respond, resulting in a default foreclosure order. Following unsuccessful attempts to auction the property, Tax Ease sought forfeiture, which also went uncontested, culminating in a forfeiture order on November 28, 2017. On appeal, the appellant's brief was deficient as it lacked required assignments of error under App.R. 16(A). Despite procedural shortcomings, the appellate court considered the appellant's argument regarding financial hardship but found it unpersuasive, emphasizing the non-excusability of tax nonpayment due to employment loss and the impropriety of considering arguments first raised on appeal. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was affirmed, effectively upholding the forfeiture of the property.
Legal Issues Addressed
Consideration of New Arguments on Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court declined to consider arguments regarding financial hardship raised for the first time on appeal, adhering to the principle that issues not raised at trial cannot be considered on appeal.
Reasoning: The court found these claims unpersuasive, noting that failure to pay taxes is not excusable due to employment loss and that issues raised for the first time on appeal are not properly before the court.
Foreclosure and Forfeiture under R.C. 5721.40subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The property owner failed to contest the foreclosure and subsequent forfeiture proceedings, ultimately resulting in the forfeiture of the property to the foreclosing entity.
Reasoning: Tax Ease filed a foreclosure complaint on January 8, 2016, and Lucas was served on January 16, 2016. He did not respond to the complaint or a subsequent motion for default judgment, leading to a foreclosure order on March 4, 2016.
Requirements for Appellate Briefs under App.R. 16(A)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant's brief was deemed procedurally deficient for failing to include assignments of error as required by appellate rules.
Reasoning: Lucas's appeal lacked the necessary structure required for appellate briefs, particularly failing to present any assignments of error as mandated by App.R. 16(A).