Property Owner Alleges Wrongful Foreclosure Against Local Government Entities

In a recent court decision, the Court of Appeals of Ohio has upheld a lower court’s ruling in favor of the Cuyahoga County Treasurer, dismissing claims brought by an individual over a property foreclosure. The complaint was filed by Cheick Kaba on March 3, 2025, in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas against the Cuyahoga County Treasurer and others, challenging the foreclosure and subsequent sale of a property he claimed to own.

The case revolves around a property located at 3720 East 110th Street in Cleveland, Ohio. The trouble began when the Cuyahoga County Treasurer initiated foreclosure proceedings on October 16, 2020, due to unpaid taxes. The foreclosure named several defendants but did not include Kaba, who later acquired the property through a quitclaim deed on September 16, 2024. Despite this acquisition, the property was sold at a sheriff’s auction on January 15, 2025, with Nyumbani Homes L.L.C. purchasing it.

Kaba attempted to challenge these proceedings by filing motions to vacate the judgment and redeem the property. However, both motions were denied by the trial court on grounds that Kaba was merely a lis pendens owner—meaning his claim to ownership arose after litigation had already commenced—and thus his rights were extinguished upon confirmation of the sheriff’s sale. In his complaint filed in March 2025 (Case No. CV-25-113009), Kaba alleged conversion, violation of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and fraud against the defendants.

The trial court dismissed Kaba’s complaint with prejudice on May 30, 2025. It found that Ohio law does not recognize conversion claims for real property and deemed FDCPA inapplicable to this situation. Additionally, it concluded that Kaba failed to adequately plead fraud under Civil Rule 9(B). Kaba appealed this decision pro se—representing himself without an attorney—arguing that his dismissal lacked compliance with notice requirements under Civ.R.41(B).

Upon review, Judge Eileen A. Gallagher wrote that Kaba’s arguments did not address how the trial court erred under Civ.R.12(B)(6) regarding failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. She noted that pro se litigants are held to standard legal procedures like any other litigant and emphasized that appellate courts are not responsible for constructing arguments or developing claims for appellants.

Ultimately, due to insufficient arguments supporting his appeal and lack of legal citations as required by Appellate Rules 12(A)(2) and 16(A)(7), Kaba’s sole assignment of error was overruled by Judges Lisa B. Forbes and Emanuella D. Groves concurring with Judge Gallagher’s opinion.

The case was presided over by Judge Eileen A. Gallagher along with Judges Lisa B. Forbes and Emanuella D. Groves concurring in judgment affirmation under Case ID No: CV-25-113009.