[Cite as Cuyahoga Cty. Treasurer v. Samara, 2014-Ohio-2974.]

 Court of Appeals of Ohio

 EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

 JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

 No. 99977 

TREASURER OF CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO 

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs.

ROBYN SAMARA, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS 

JUDGMENT:

AFFIRMED

Civil Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CV-12-773761 

BEFORE: Kilbane, J., Rocco, P.J., and E.T. Gallagher, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: July 3, 2014
APPELLANT

Robyn Samara, pro se 

2106 W. 93rd Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44102 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

Adam D. Jutte 

Anthony J. Giunta 

Michael A. Kenny 

Colleen Majeski 

Judith Miles 

Gregory Rowinski 

Assistant County Prosecutors 

The Justice Center - 9th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J.: 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Robyn Samara (“Samara”), appeals from a decree of 

foreclosure arising from a 2009 delinquent land certificate. Having reviewed the record 

and pertinent law, we affirm the trial court’s decision. 

{¶2} On September 23, 2009, the Cuyahoga County auditor issued a delinquent 

land certificate in the amount of $3,946.72 for Samara’s property located at 2104 West 

93rd Street in Cleveland. A preliminary judicial report filed on November 5, 2011, states 

that, according to the Cuyahoga County treasurer’s tax duplicate for the second half of 

2010, $10,001.41 plus penalty is due and payable. In addition, there is a mortgage in the 

amount of $22,573 upon the parcel, and three judgment liens in the amounts of $4,674.50, 

$1,756.46, and $3,268.72.1

 

{¶3} On January 18, 2012, the treasurer filed a complaint for collection of 

$3,946.72 in delinquent taxes against Samara and named others having interests in the 

parcel. Samara chose to represent herself in the matter and for her answer, demanded 

proof of the county’s claim. In addition, she created a variety of documents that she 

deemed to be a “presentment for value” or satisfaction of the tax delinquency. On June 

20, 2012, Samara filed a “debt forgiveness voucher,” which she described in oral 

argument as a type of document she creates to satisfy her various debts; however, to date, 

the voucher has not been accepted as lawful payment of any debt. 

 1 On May 21, 2012, the treasurer submitted an endorsement to the 

preliminary judicial report that indicated that the lien in the amount of $4,674.50 

was satisfied. 
{¶4} The matter proceeded to a tax hearing on June 21, 2012. On August 24, 

2012, the trial court issued the following two orders: 

Tax hearing held by magistrate on 6/21/12. Assistant prosecuting attorneys 

* * * appeared for plaintiff and defendant-titleholder Robyn Samara 

appeared on her own behalf. Magistrate finds taxes and other charges due 

and payable. Decree of foreclosure in favor of Treasurer of Cuyahoga 

County, Ohio. Magistrate[’s] decision to be issued and filed separately. 

Notice issued. 

The magistrate[’s] decision is held in abeyance. As defendant-titleholder[,] 

Robyn Samara has challenged the tax assessment[.] [P]laintiff must 

present evidence to prove its claim of tax delinquency and is granted leave * 

* * to do so. Failure to comply may result in dismissal without prejudice. 

Notice issued. 

{¶5} On September 7, 2012, the treasurer filed the affidavit of Chistopher Neff 

(“Neff”), the treasurer’s delinquent portfolio manager, who averred that $3,946.72 is due 

and payable on the parcel in connection with the 2009 delinquent land tax certificate. On 

September 18, 2012, the magistrate issued a decision finding that $3,946.72 in unpaid 

taxes, penalties, and assessments is due and payable, that the treasurer has a good and 

valid first lien on the parcel, and that a decree of foreclosure should issue. 

{¶6} Samara did not file objections to the magistrate’s decision, but on 

September 28, 2012, she filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment and a 

motion for injunctive relief. On October 1, 2012, she filed a notice of appeal, which was 

dismissed for lack of a final appealable order. See Treasurer of Cuyahoga Cty. v. 

Samara, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99013 (Oct. 10, 2012). 

{¶7} On May 6, 2013, the trial court denied Samara’s motion for relief from 

judgment and motion for injunctive relief. On May 9, 2013, the trial court adopted the 
magistrate’s decision, and on May 13, 2013, the court issued a judgment entry granting 

foreclosure. 

{¶8} Samara appeals and assigns the following five errors for our review: 

 Assignment of Error One 

The trial court committed prejudicial error in granting all judgments 

pertaining to Treasurer of Cuyahoga County v. Samara, Cuyahoga No. 

CV-12-773761. 

 Assignment of Error Two 

The trial court committed prejudicial error in not making the proper ruling. 

 Assignment of Error Three 

The trial curt committed prejudicial error in making a ruling when an 

attorney can’t testify for a party. 

 Assignment of Error Four 

The trial court committed prejudicial error in allowing Plaintiff’s version of 

proof of claim as acceptable evidence of a debt. 

 Assignment of Error Five 

The rules of procedure were not followed. 

 

 Compliance with the Law 

{¶9} In her first, second, and fifth assignments of error, Samara complains the 

trial court failed to follow the statutory law, the common law, the Ohio Rules of Civil 

Procedure, and other “duties” in entering the decree of foreclosure. 

{¶10} Pursuant to R.C. 323.131(A), property taxes must be paid within one year 
from the date they are due. Upon payment, the treasurer shall issue a receipt to the 

taxpayer. R.C. 323.14. However, 

[n]o receipt given by the treasurer for payments made otherwise than in 

lawful money or the notes specified in section 321.13 of the Revised Code 

shall be valid, unless the moneys represented by such payment are received 

into the county treasury or a county depository. 

Id. 

{¶11} Pursuant to R.C. 323.25, when property taxes “are not paid within sixty 

days after delivery of the delinquent land duplicate to the county treasurer * * *, the 

county treasurer shall enforce the lien for the taxes by civil action.” See also R.C. 

5721.10; R.C. 5721.18. 

{¶12} It is sufficient for the county treasurer to allege the amount of the taxes and 

that the taxes are unpaid. R.C. 323.26. A certified copy of the entry on the tax duplicate 

shall be prima facie evidence of such allegations and the validity of the taxes. Id. See 

also R.C. 5721.18(B)(3), which states: 

[T]he certificate or master list filed by the auditor with the prosecuting 

attorney shall be prima-facie evidence of the amount and validity of the 

taxes, assessments, charges, penalties, and interest appearing due and 

unpaid on the parcel to which the certificate or master list relates and their 

nonpayment. 

{¶13} Pursuant to R.C. 323.25, R.C. 323.28, and R.C. 5721.18, if the property is 

not redeemed, the court shall render findings regarding the taxes, assessments, penalties, 

interest, and charges due and payable that will be payable at the time the deed of the 

property is transferred to the purchaser or transferee. 

{¶14} Moreover, tax foreclosure actions are in rem proceedings, and thus operate 
on the land itself and not on the title of the one in whose name the property is listed for 

taxation. Lorain Cty. Treasurer v. Schultz, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 08CA009487, 

2009-Ohio-1828, ¶ 10; In re Foreclosure of Lien for Delinquent Taxes by Action in Rem, 

7th Dist. Jefferson No. 06-JE-40, 2008-Ohio-1173, ¶ 18. The civil rules, to the extent 

that they would by their nature be clearly inapplicable, do not apply to foreclosure 

proceedings. Schultz at ¶ 11, citing R.C. 5721.18(B)(1) and In the Matter of Foreclosure 

of Liens for Delinquent Land Taxes v. Parcels of Land Encumbered with Delinquent Tax 

Liens, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 96APE02-160, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 3222, *7 (July 25, 

1996). Additionally, the Ohio Supreme Court has held that the notice provisions set 

forth in the tax foreclosure statute satisfy the due process notice requirements. In re 

Foreclosure of Liens for Delinquent Taxes, 62 Ohio St.2d 333, 405 N.E.2d 1030 (1980), 

paragraph one of the syllabus, citing Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 

U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950). 

{¶15} In this matter, the record indicates that in 2009, a delinquent land tax 

certificate was issued for Samara’s parcel in the amount of $3,946.72. The affidavit of 

Neff also established that $3,946.72 is due and payable on the parcel. 

{¶16} Samara maintains, however, that since creditors may not force a debtor to 

use a particular form of payment, the county is required to accept her self-created 

“presentment for value.” Samara additionally asserts that the debt has been discharged 

because the county received these documents and did not return them or dishonor them as 

payment. 
{¶17} The documents that Samara created as a “presentment for value” in 

satisfaction of the tax delinquency and her self-created “debt forgiveness voucher” are not 

currency or legal tender, as congress has exclusive constitutional power to coin and 

regulate currency and has specified that currency is payable only in legal tender. See 

Sanders v. Freeman, 221 F.3d 846, 856 (6th Cir.2000); In re Goodrich, 7 B.R. 590 

(S.D.Ohio 1980). 

{¶18} In addition, the documents that Samara created as a “presentment for value” 

in satisfaction of the tax delinquency and her self-created “debt forgiveness voucher” are 

not negotiable instruments, so there has been no presentment, acceptance, or discharge of 

the debt under the terms of Article Three of the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted 

in Ohio. As explained in Mohammad v. Awadallah, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97590, 

2012-Ohio-3455, ¶ 16, a negotiable instrument is defined, in relevant part, “as an 

unconditional promise to pay a fixed amount of money that (1) is payable to bearer, (2) is 

payable on demand or at a definite time, and (3) may contain the power to give, maintain, 

or protect collateral to secure payment.” See also UCC Section 3-104 and R.C. 1303.03. 

 Thus, the promise or order of an instrument must be payable in “money,” which is 

defined at law as “a medium of exchange currently authorized or adopted by a domestic 

or foreign government * * *, a monetary unit of account established by an 

intergovernmental organization or by agreement between two or more countries.” UCC

Section 1-201(24); R.C. 1301.201(A)(24); accord R.C. 5701.04. Accordingly, the 

documents that Samara drafted are not negotiable instruments, and there has been no 
presentment, acceptance, or discharge of the debt under the terms of the UCC. 

{¶19} In light of the prima facie evidence of the tax delinquency, and the absence 

of evidence of valid payments made in lawful money or the notes specified in R.C. 

321.13, there has been no valid payment of the tax debt. R.C. 323.14. Foreclosure was 

properly granted. See R.C. 5721.18. 

{¶20} In addition, Samara has not demonstrated her claim that the requirements of 

the Ohio Civil Rules were not met in this matter. 

{¶21} The first, second, and fifth assignments of error are without merit. 

 Amount of Debt

{¶22} For Samara’s third and fourth assignments of error, she asserts that the trial 

court erred in determining the amount of the tax delinquency. 

{¶23} The certificate of delinquency filed by the auditor with the prosecuting 

attorney is prima facie evidence of the amount and validity of the taxes and of their 

nonpayment. Rokakis v. Western Reserve Leasing Co., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95058, 

2011-Ohio-1926, ¶ 22-25, citing Geauga Cty. Treasurer v. Pauer, 11th Dist. Geauga Nos. 

92-G-1722 and 92-G-1724, 1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 3334 (June 30, 1993). In addition, 

the sworn affidavit of Neff, certified the true and exact amount of the debt and was 

admissible evidence. See Beachland Enters. v. Bd. of Review, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 

99770, 2013-Ohio-5585, ¶ 64. Moreover, because we have not been provided with a 

transcript of the proceedings, we must presume regularity. State ex rel. Bardwell v. 

Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 127 Ohio St.3d 202, 2010-Ohio-5073, 937 N.E.2d 1274, 
¶ 14. 

{¶24} Accordingly, the third and fourth assignments of error are without merit. 

{¶25} The judgment is affirmed. 

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into 

execution. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

 

 

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, JUDGE 

KENNETH A. ROCCO, P.J., and 

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR