County-by-County Ohio Risk Report: Where Senior Homeowner Protections Could Shift Foreclosure Dynamics

Immediate Brief: How H.B. 443 Could Rewire Ohio Foreclosure Risk — County Winners and Losers for 2026

Hook: If you are a local law firm, investor, or title operations manager tasked with Ohio due diligence, the single most consequential policy change on your radar in early 2026 is H.B. 443 — the Senior Protection from Foreclosure Act. This bill does not change mortgage law; it changes the shape of county tax‑foreclosure pipelines. That shift will materially affect where foreclosures occur, which properties are vulnerable, and how enforcement leads should be prioritized.

Executive takeaway (most important first)

• If H.B. 443 passes in 2026 as drafted, counties with large concentrations of owner‑occupied, 65+ homeowners and a history of tax‑foreclosure enforcement will see the largest declines in tax‑foreclosure starts affecting seniors — and a commensurate rise in the share of foreclosures coming from non‑senior portfolios (mortgage, vacant, investor‑owned).
• On a county level, the biggest net shifts are likely in Cuyahoga, Franklin, Hamilton, Lucas, Montgomery, Summit, Mahoning, Stark, Lorain, and a set of rural southeastern counties (e.g., Scioto, Ross) where seniors comprise a higher share of owner‑occupied households and property values fall below the bill’s $750,000 threshold.
• For investor due diligence and local counsel, the practical consequence will be a need to re‑weight risk scoring: reduce tax‑foreclosure exposure for senior owner‑occupied cohorts while increasing scrutiny of mortgage default trajectories and vacant/derelict properties that will remain enforceable.

Why this matters now: 2025–2026 context

Foreclosure activity in the U.S. rose in 2025 — ATTOM reported a 14% increase to 367,460 filings — reversing several years of unusually low levels. Ohio ranked 6th nationally in late 2025 for foreclosure filings. At the same time, the Ohio Legislature introduced H.B. 443 to codify protections many counties already implement informally for older homeowners. The convergence of rising baseline filings and a potential statewide carve‑out for seniors makes 2026 a pivotal year for localized foreclosure dynamics.

“The legislature took action on the unvoted property tax spikes in the 2025 sessions, but it is still important for us to address reforms on the foreclosure aspect of property taxes,” Rep. David Thomas told reporters in late 2025.

How we analyzed county impact

To produce a county‑level risk forecast useful for operational due diligence, use the following reproducible methodology. This is the same approach we deploy for litigation leads and investor risk products.

Data inputs

• Foreclosure filings: historical tax‑foreclosure starts and notices (county treasurers/court records; ATTOM 2023–2025).
• Demographics: share of population 65+ and owner‑occupied housing rates (U.S. Census ACS 2020–2024).
• Property values: median and distribution to check the $750,000 threshold (County Auditor and Zillow/Zillow Research).
• County enforcement behavior: frequency of sheriff sales, frequency of tax lien auctions, documented use of payment plans (county treasurer memos and local news reporting).
• Economic stressors: unemployment, poverty rates, and rising tax delinquencies.

Model and assumptions

1. Create a baseline index of tax‑foreclosure exposure per county (weighted by recent filings and sheriff sale volume).
2. Estimate the senior exposure subset by overlaying owner‑occupied 65+ rates with property value distribution below $750k.
3. Apply a policy impact multiplier: counties with documented informal payment plans or stated intent to implement will see a higher reduction in senior tax‑foreclosure starts (range: 35%–60%); counties with aggressive enforcement and low payment‑plan usage see lower reductions (15%–35%).
4. Project net change in total foreclosures by reallocating the reduced senior tax‑foreclosure volume to other foreclosure sources or simply reducing overall filings depending on county liquidity and enforcement resources.

Top counties where foreclosure patterns will change most if H.B. 443 passes

Below is an actionable, prioritized list for law firms and investors. Each entry includes the key drivers for the predicted change and recommended due‑diligence actions.

1. Cuyahoga (Cleveland)

   Why: High foreclosure volume historically, concentrated senior populations in owner‑occupied neighborhoods, broad mix of property values largely under $750k. County already uses payment plans in many cases — codification will reduce senior tax‑foreclosures materially.

   Action: Recalibrate tax‑foreclosure risk models to lower senior owner‑occupied exposure. Prioritize mortgages and vacant properties for enforcement leads. Request county treasurer datafeeds for ongoing monitoring.

2. Franklin (Columbus)

   Why: Large housing stock, measurable tax delinquency pockets, and a growing senior population in older neighborhoods. Mid‑range home values mean many seniors fall under the $750k cap.

   Action: For investor due diligence, add a policy layer when assessing portfolios with senior owner occupants. Validate owner age and occupancy in title searches earlier in the workflow.

3. Hamilton (Cincinnati)

   Why: Historically active sheriff sales and a mixture of urban/suburban senior owner‑occupied parcels. Local treasurer practices indicate some informal leniency; statutory change will formalize that.

   Action: Map high‑risk ZIP codes for non‑senior enforcement; update collection lead targeting accordingly.

4. Lucas (Toledo)

   Why: Elevated tax foreclosure activity and pockets of concentrated elderly owner occupancy. Median values are low, so most seniors qualify.

   Action: Adjust predictive scoring models to discount senior owner‑occupied tax exposure; focus on mortgage default signals and municipal liens.

5. Montgomery (Dayton)

   Why: Midwestern manufacturing declines, higher poverty rates, older housing stock. Seniors are disproportionate among owner‑occupied households in key tracts.

   Action: Include poverty and unemployment overlays in risk scoring; perform on‑the‑ground title interviews for borderline properties.

6. Summit (Akron)

   Why: Significant senior owner base, many sub‑$750k residences, and a history of county collections enforcement.

   Action: Move senior cohorts out of enforcement priority for tax remedies; redeploy resources toward vacant and investor‑owned assets that will remain actionable.

7. Mahoning, Stark, Lorain (Youngstown, Canton, Lorain)

   Why: These smaller Rust‑belt counties combine high senior shares with persistent delinquency rates. Policy codification will cause an outsized percentage decline in senior tax‑foreclosures because many affected homes are low‑value and owner‑occupied.

   Action: Expect a shift in collection caseload composition. Local counsel should revise affordability assessments and settlement strategies when representing seniors.

8. Rural southeastern counties (Scioto, Ross, Pike, Adams, Meigs)

   Why: High senior population percentages, low median values, and fewer informal safeguards. The relative reduction in tax foreclosures for seniors can be large in percentage terms but smaller in absolute volume — still material for local market liquidity.

   Action: Investors with rural portfolios should re‑run tax risk scoring and plan for longer timelines on distressed sales since courts may reprioritize cases.

Where the bill will have the least effect

Counties with high home values (many parcels above $750k), low senior concentrations, or foreclosures driven mainly by mortgage defaults rather than tax delinquencies will experience minimal direct change. Examples include affluent exurban counties around Columbus and Cincinnati, and pockets of northeast Ohio with high property valuations.

Practical playbook for law firms and investors

Below are tactical steps to convert this policy forecast into operational advantage.

1. Build an Ohio foreclosure map with the right layers

• Layer suggestions: historical tax‑foreclosure starts, sheriff sale heatmap, owner age (65+), owner‑occupied flag, median property value, payment‑plan enrollment, mortgage balance bands.
• Tools: QGIS or ArcGIS for map building; Power BI / Tableau for dashboards; PostGIS for spatial queries; Python (pandas, geopandas) for data joins and modeling.
• Feeds: County auditor APIs, treasurer sale lists, ATTOM or CoreLogic datasets, ACS 5‑year estimates.

2. Implement scenario modeling: “with H.B. 443” vs “no H.B. 443”

1. Baseline: recent 3‑year county tax‑foreclosure filing rate per 1,000 parcels.
2. Policy counterfactual: subtract estimated avoided senior filings (using the multipliers described earlier) and redistribute or reduce filings accordingly.
3. Output: county‑level delta table and spatial layer for portfolio risk reweighting.

3. Update operational checklists and title workflows

• Add an owner age and owner‑occupied verification step early in title and enforcement workflows.
• Flag properties where the owner indicates an ongoing monthly tax payment plan — these will likely be exempt under H.B. 443.
• Prioritize non‑senior properties for expedited enforcement leads and vendor contracting.

4. Monitor county policy statements and treasurer guidance

Implementation will vary. Some treasurers may expand payment‑plan programs proactively; others could shift enforcement resources to non‑senior cases or focus on municipal liens. Set up automated scraping of county treasurer notices and local news to detect early procedural changes.

Advanced analytics and future‑proofing (2026 trends)

Emerging trends in 2026 change how you should model county‑level foreclosure risk:

• Hybrid enforcement models: Counties are increasingly using combined digital notices, targeted payment plans, and pre‑sale outreach; this reduces sheriff sale rates but increases complex case management.
• Data fusion: Successful teams now fuse underwriting, tax, and demographic layers with utility and zoning data to identify latent risk pockets faster than historical filings alone.
• Machine learning for lead prioritization: Supervised models that predict which delinquent accounts will actually reach sale are replacing simple delinquency thresholds.
• Regulatory arbitrage: If H.B. 443 passes only at the state level, watch for county ordinances and administrative rules aimed at narrowing exemptions or changing payment‑plan eligibility — continuous monitoring is essential.

Red flags and escalation checklist for investor due diligence

1. Owner age 65+ and owner‑occupied status without clear evidence of missed payments — flag for potential exemption under H.B. 443.
2. Properties with unpaid municipal liens (water, code enforcement) — these may remain actionable and can substitute for tax foreclosure volume.
3. Parcels in counties with stated intent to preserve senior homeownership — expect longer timelines and different settlement economics.
4. High concentration of properties near the $750k threshold — verify assessed vs market value; some properties may be borderline.

Case study (illustrative): Cuyahoga County re‑scoring

We ran a prototype re‑score for a hypothetical 3,000‑parcel portfolio concentrated in Cuyahoga County. Baseline tax‑foreclosure exposure (based on 2023–2025 filings) suggested a 7.2% annual chance of a tax‑foreclosure start. When H.B. 443 protections were applied to owner‑occupied 65+ parcels that were making monthly tax payments, the portfolio exposure fell to 4.6% — a 36% relative reduction. The enforcement priority shifted to 1) vacant properties, 2) investor‑owned tax delinquent parcels, and 3) mortgage foreclosures.

Limitations and uncertainties

No county forecast is risk‑free. Key unknowns include final legislative language (definitions and administrative rules), county implementation choices, and homeowner behavior (will more seniors enroll in payment plans?). Model ranges we provide are scenario estimates, not guarantees. Use them as a prioritized decisioning input, not an absolute liability figure.

Actionable next steps (30/60/90 day plan)

30 days

• Ingest county treasurer sale lists and ACS 5‑year demographic layers into a centralized GIS.
• Identify all owner‑occupied 65+ parcels in key counties and tag them in your portfolio system.

60 days

• Run scenario modeling to produce a county‑by‑county delta report (with maps) showing projected changes in tax‑foreclosure volume under H.B. 443.
• Reprioritize vendor spend: shift enforcement outreach toward non‑senior actionable leads.

90 days

• Engage local counsel in the top 10 counties to understand procedural changes and to draft revised settlement templates that account for senior protections.
• Set automated alerts for county policy updates and treasurer bulletins.

Final thoughts: What victory for seniors means for market participants

H.B. 443’s likely effect is not just fewer sheriff sales for a subset of Ohio homeowners; it is a reallocation of enforcement attention and a change to the data signals investors and counsel must track. For law firms, it means new client intake rules and revised negotiation playbooks for tax matters. For investors, it requires re‑scoring portfolios and shifting enforcement capital toward non‑protected cohorts.

Practically, expect fewer tax‑foreclosure filings to originate from senior owner‑occupied parcels — and expect counties to change tactics to recover revenues from other sources.

Call to action

If your firm or fund needs a county‑level risk pack tailored to your portfolio (including GIS layers, scenario models, and a prioritized enforcement playbook for Ohio counties), request a custom analysis now. Early adopters who retool models in 2026 will gain a measurable operational advantage when H.B. 443 goes into effect or when counties begin to change enforcement practices.

Related Reading

• Top 10 Tech Accessories to Pack for a Motel Stay
• From the Drakensberg to the Chilterns: Comparing South Africa’s Ridges with UK Hikes
• Smart Plug Guide for Landlords: Automate Renters’ Comfort Without Voiding Agreements
• E-Bikes and Dogs: The Complete Guide to Transporting Your Pet Safely
• Beyond the Hype: How to Tell If a Wearable Health Feature Actually Helps You