160 MISC. PUBLICATION 218, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
The reasons given for the failure to make the certification regularly 
were (1) an extension of the time for payment of the December 
installment beyond the 30-day collection period, (2) pressure of other 
duties, and (8) to save money. 
(3) Is the quadrennial certification of lands delinquent for 4 consecutive years 
made with regularity? 
69 auditors make it regularly. 
14 auditors have omitted it some years. 
5 auditors do not make it at all. 
Many auditors maintain that the results obtained do not justify 
the time and expense involved. Nilsson says: 
There seems to be no valid reason why foreclosure proceedings against delin- 
quent lands should not be instituted 2 years after original notification, instead 
of waiting 4 years or more. 
(4) What actions are taken on foreclosure proceedings? 
In 29 counties the law is complied with. 
In 7 counties foreclosures are made only when there is reasonable certainty 
of a sale. 
In 10 counties the law breaks down with the auditor. 
In 16 counties the law breaks down with the treasurer. 
In 22 counties the law breaks down with the prosecutor. 
In 4 counties the law breaks down with the courts. 
(5) Are foreclosure sales being held at which all tracts of land, on which the tazes, 
assessments, penalties, and interest have not been paid for 4 consecutive years, are 
offered? 
mH 29 counties have had sales at which an attempt was made to sell all such 
parcels. 
7 counties have had only a few sales. 
52 counties have had no sales. 
Nilsson comments as follows: 
Only 29 counties of the State attempted to foreclose on all delinquent parcels 
after the expiration of the 4-year period from the date of original certification. 
In other words, one-third of the counties of the State carried out the law to the 
letter in endeavoring to dispose of delinquent lands. Whether or not a parcel 
would return enough in sale price to pay costs was not of prime importance. 
Sales were ordered, and if necessary the counties assumed all or a large portion 
of the costs of sale. All delinquent taxpayers stood equal before the law. 
* * * From the point of view of the counties, foreclosure proceedings, on 
the whole, have proved to be a costly venture. The remedy for this situation, 
however, does not lie with the refusal of the counties to foreclose on delinquent 
properties in order to escape court and advertising costs, but rather with the 
minimizing of the ‘‘red tape’’ which gives rise to these excessive sale costs. The 
adoption of the former alternative opens the door for wholesale tax evasion. 
(6) Are sales of land forfeited to the State held regularly? 
No county holds such sales. 
Nilsson attributes the absence of such sales to the fact that the 
selling price cannot be less than the sum of the accrued taxes and 
costs. He believes that the county auditors should be authorized 
to offer such properties for sale to the highest bidder. If no bid is 
received at the first sale it should be offered at the next succeeding 
sale, and if still no bid is received he believes that the land should 
actually be forfeited to the State and placed at the disposal of the 
State supervisor of public lands to be treated as other public lands. 
Moreover, he states that the further levy of taxes on lands that are 
bid in by the State appears to be futile and only adds to the difficulty 
of disposing of the lands later. 
Nilsson’s conclusion is that the principle underlying the present 
real property delinquency statutes (in Ohio) is sound, in that it 
provides a logical and orderly method of collecting delinquent real- 
