Judge Keith M. Spaeth

The Ohio Department of Education has a remarkable record in teacher disciplinary proceedings over the past five years: Nearly 100% of all proceedings decided by the state board of education result in discipline for the teacher.  Yes, the standards for “due process” in ODE administrative proceedings are so robust that nearly no one is ever found “not guilty” of the charges leveled.

That fact alone should make the citizenry shiver, as no one involved in the proceedings seems to ever find a chink in the armor of the Department’s overzealous prosecutions.  It has the appearance, if not the reality, of a rubber-stamp procedure from beginning to end.

That one-sided history of adjudication of teacher disciplinary proceedings thus made our win this week in Langdon v. Ohio Department of Education all the more sweet.

In a proceeding that endured for more than 36 months, including seven days of trial, and taking six months after the close of the hearing for the Hearing Examiner to issue a decision, our client’s teaching license was revoked by the Ohio Board of Education.  She was a special education teacher in the troubled Lakota School District, dealing with developmentally-disabled, multi-handicapped children.  We then appealed that administrative decision on behalf of our client to the Butler County Common Pleas Court pursuant to O.R.C. §119.12.

Today, the decision in that appeal was issued, and our client was completely vindicated on all points, evidentiary and legal.

In that decision, the Honorable Judge Keith Spaeth from the Butler County Common Pleas Court found “an appalling lack of fairness and due process” throughout the seven-day proceeding to which our client, Michelle Langdon was subjected.  Among the due process violations were

  • failure to provide the client with the most basic notice of the alleged infractions,
  • a complete failure to ever define “conduct unbecoming” (the basic charge against her), and
  • a failure to name her accusers.

To the Ohio Department of Education, fundamental fairness and notice of the charges filed apparently are simply an unneeded inconvenience.

The case was filled with amazing parrys and thrusts to force bureaucratic conformity in the cozy Lakota School District bureaucracy.

  • For example, when a teacher’s aide was repeatedly late, absent and lazy on the job, our client hurt her feelings by saying “I just want you to do your job.”   As hard as it may be to believe, this fact pattern was one of the dozens of charges — in challenging the inertia of the educational bureaucracy — against which our client had to defend.
  • Our client also confronted an administrator in the Lakota Schools for her failure to properly equip the classroom with the furniture and equipment needed for a special needs population. Yes, advocating forcefully for special needs children is the basis for revoking of a teacher’s license according to the Ohio Department of Education.

The Court even cited in its opinion the Hearing Examiner’s strange rulings on procedural and due process issues and the lateness of his decision outside of the statutorily-permitted deadline.  Virtually everything about the administrative proceeding was unfortunate and Kafkaesque.  This Judge Spaeth clearly understood.

You may read Judge Spaeth’s brilliant decision here.  You may read the Finney Law Firm’s briefs before the Common Pleas Court here and here.

This case was a pleasure defending, and the client was a delight.

This is from Judge Sapeth’s decision about our client:

What the evidence and testimony from the administrative hearing does show is that Appellant was a dedicated, caring educator…She was an advocate for these children, and throughout her tenure at Lakota, Appellant went above and beyond the normal duties of a classroom teacher to ensure that her students had a genuine high school experience and resources to help them transition from the classroom to independent living.

We truly were thrilled to help “Make a Difference” for this client in this engagement.  The proceeding was important to her license and career, but the bigger principle of reining in an out-of-control state agency was even more important.  And here that principle  was vindicated.

We now look forward to the expeditious restoration of our client’s teaching licenses and an award of her attorneys fees for forcing her to endure this persecution, which state statute requires.

You are an investor buying and renting residential real property.  And, yes, the Ohio legislature has decided that you do not have enough paperwork to handle already!

O.R.C. Chapter 5323, enacted ten years ago, requires registration of  residential real property with the County Auditor by its owner.

The rule applies only in urban counties, counties with more than 200,000 in population.  Presently, qualifying counties are: Butler,  Cuyahoga,  Franklin, Hamilton, Lake, Lorain, Lucas, Mahoning, Montgomery, Summit, Lorain, and Trumbull.

Once your property is registered, there is no need to re-file annually, and there is no fee for the filing.

For properties with co-owners, only one of them is required to file. The filing is required within 60 days following the day a real property conveyance form for that property is filed with the county auditor. The fine for failure to timely file the form is up to $150.00. against the property that is the subject of the violation.

The Hamilton County form, on which multiple properties can be listed at once, is linked here.

Today, we announced the addition of experienced attorney Steve Imm to our firm.  Steve is a litigator with 30+ years of experience, and a deep focus on labor and employment law.

You may read more about Steve’s qualifications here.

We are thrilled to have Steve join our firm, and with the depth of experience he brings to “Make a Difference” for our clients.

We learned through a protracted and complicated process about the congressional ethics processes.  It was a case we initiated and pursued with some limited degree of success against a sitting member of Congress many years ago.

What we learned is that there are two committees in Washington that have some jurisdiction over whether members of Congress violate the ethics rules that apply to them — the Office of Congressional Ethics and the House Ethics Committee.  They have remarkable similar names, so much so that the public would be rightfully confused as to their identities and functions.

The Office of Congressional Ethics is a citizens oversight committee appointed by House leadership that more or less, on private complaints, makes “probable cause” findings for further consideration by the House Ethics Committee.  The Congressional Ethics Committee consists of members of Congress.  The Office of Congressional Ethics has a rich tradition of investigating and impartially referring meritorious matters to the House Ethics Committee for official action.  But the House Ethics Committee is notorious for being the place where all complaints against members of Congress go to die. Some members of Congress thinks the Office of Congressional Ethics is too zealous in its pursuit of members of Congress and, specifically, object to the consideration of anonymous complaints and the pursuit of frivolous matters, requiring members of Congress to expend enormous sums defending themselves.

Yesterday, the U.S House GOP caucus preliminarily voted to significantly restrain the Office of Congressional Ethics — to clip its wings.  Today, the same caucus abandoned that decision and left things as they are for now, and for a bipartisan decision on the fate of the Office to be made by the House Ethics Committee.

You may read the story of all of this by Dierdre Shesgreen of Gannett News and the Cincinnati Enquirer here.

 

It was hard to believe when the client told us her story.  In 2015, the University of Cincinnati told 19-year-old Casey Helmicki, a pre-med student, that men and women were not allowed to group together in physics lab.  She had even gone up the chain of command at UC to complain, to her professor, to her department chairman, and to the Title IX office, all to no avail.

We filed suit under Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in university programs,and achieved a relatively quick settlement for our client.

Today’s Cincinnati Enquirer covers the settlement today.  You may read about that here.

One of Cincinnati’s most distinguished citizens — an accomplished inventor and scientist — passed yesterday with worldwide acclaim.

Dr. Henry Heimlich moved into the annals of history and medicine upon his death, and his significant accomplishments (which extend well beyond the Heimlich Maneuver) will endure for perpetuity.

But I knew him as a client and friend, and I can personally say it was an honor to have known him and worked with him.

He shared with me stories of his many accomplishments and how he conceived of his many life-saving inventions.  It was remarkable how his mind worked, but one of the remarkable features as how simple and logic-based his thinking was.  Some of the answers he conceived were right before our eyes, but only he saw them clearly.

That we all could think creatively, and simply, and so reasonably would be an asset to humanity.

RIP, Dr. Heimlich.   Rest in peace.

Read more here.

Chris Finney is part of a distinguished panel of speakers who will present this Thursday and Friday, December 15th and 16th, 2016 at the Millennium Hotel: “Local Government Law from Start to Finish.”

The program is aimed at educating local government officials, county, municipal and township attorneys, as well as attorneys who litigate against government entities in Ohio and federal law addressing these entities.

Topics include (i) Public employment issues, (ii) Public records, (iii) open meetings, (iv) police misconduct, (v) public bidding, (vi) code enforcement aimed at blighted properties and nuisance properties, (v) billboard law, (vi) economic development finance, (vii) taxpayer actions and fee shifting, and (viii) government attorney ethics.

Mr. Finney will join Cincinnati Law Department attorney Terrance Nestor on Friday at 2:30 PM in presenting on Taxpayer Actions and Fee Shifting.

The class runs both Thursday and Friday from 9 AM until 4:30 PM and features numerous attorneys from Cincinnati’s Law Department as well as other municipal attorneys.

You may sign up for or learn more about the program here.

Today’s Journal-News features the settlement that resulted from this law firm’s suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act on behalf of an in-patient psychiatric facility seeking to locate into West Chester Township.

For more than six months following the client’s application for zoning approval, the Township stonewalled Dr. Mohammed Aziz from locating his facility into a former nursing home property, despite the clear language of the Americans with Disabilities Act requiring parity in the treatment of psychiatric patients with those with purely physical ailments.  It is simply illegal to treat the facilities differently.

The reason for the law is obvious: Just as occurred in West Chester Township, psychiatric providers and patients nationwide routinely suffer repeated invidious discrimination as compared to other health care providers.  In West Chester Township the township administration and some of the Trustees worked the citizenry into a frenzy with assorted falsehoods and canards. Then they imposed a moratorium on zoning approvals, targeting the new facility and preventing a zoning certificate from being issued to allow it to open.

Judge Timothy Black quickly addressed these issues once Finney Law Firm attorneys brought suit.

“Nothing is more satisfying, as an attorney, than to stand an over-reaching bureaucrat or elected official before a Federal judge and force him to explain his behavior,” said Chris Finney.  “We are pleased that the law worked as intended in this instance.”

You may read the story here.

This is one more example of how we “make a difference” for our clients: Deep knowledge of the law, commitment to its proficient practice, and tenacity in pursuit of our clients’ objectives.

 

It was a long and arduous legal journey expose and punish the $300,000 in illegal campaign contributions aimed to defeat Christopher Smitherman in the 2013 Cincinnati City Council elections, but Finney Law Firm and attorney Curt Hartman indeed “Made a Difference” by doggedly pursuing this case to conclusion.

You may read more about that adventure here.

We are pleased to report that Cincinnatians for Jobs Now and Jonathan White recently paid the $15,000 fine levied against them in the disciplinary proceeding.

Read the transmittal here.

We would not be the first to use the phrase: “You don’t know what you don’t know,” but this is never more true than in the setting of planning and executing on new construction, residential and commercial.

As a general rule, new construction can be had in four different contexts: (i) building on “raw land,” (ii) building on a “developed lot,” (iii) building on land that has an existing building that will be demolished and (iv) renovating an existing building.  Compared to the relative ease of buying and using an existing building, each of these can be fraught with risks and unexpected costs.

Existing building.

Let’s first address the “relative” ease of buying an existing, occupied building.  Now, don’t misinterpret what we say here: You should always thoroughly “kick the tires” in every purchase.  Comprehensive “due diligence” is prudent in every transaction to find construction and maintenance defects, environmental problems, and zoning and other regulatory issues.  But having said that, it is at least possible to look at, touch, feel, and inspection existing building, whether a single family home or commercial structure.  The longer it has been there, the more likely it’s not going anywhere.  You can check the building and zoning file of the applicable City, Village or Township to see if the existing use has been cited as being in violation.  Buying land for new construction is in some ways more complicated.

Raw land.

So, a buyer looks at land and sees no building.  Is that “raw land” or a “developed lot?”  In the terminology used in this blog post, the distinction between a “developed lot” and “raw land” is the “full development” of the site with roadways and utilities (water, sanitary sewer, gas, electric, telephone, and cable television) and properly addressing stormwater drainage and detention.  Also, typically zoning approval for the intended use of lots has been obtained before the “development” of the land and the cut-up of the same into lots.  On the other hand, “raw land” is just that — land without any improvements on it, underground or otherwise.

In the case of “raw land” there are a host of potential pitfalls to achieving a final new construction product:

  • Zoning: Is the proposed use permitted and are proposed lot size, setbacks, and other variables for the proposed use permitted?
  • Utility access: Are public utilities available at the property line of the site (and indeed how much will it cost to extend it to the building).  The party who develops a site is usually responsible for (a) obtaining easements for and (b) paying the cost of extending public utilities to the property line and to the building itself.
  • Soil conditions: The suitability of soil for new construction is a significant variable for new construction.  In short, virtually every piece of land can be built upon from a physical perspective, but one may have to dig, bore, pier, bridge and engage in other engineering techniques to make that possible.  And the cost of building that proper foundation for the new construction can exceed the cost of the land and building.  Further, if the prior owner has moved and compacted sills not he site, it can significantly exacerbate the problem.  When a developer piles soil that is not acceptable compacted, it forces the builder to escalate or pier down to an acceptable depth before starting the construction.
  • Buried waste: In addition to soil problems, it is not at all uncommon to find all sorts of buried materials on what appears to the naked eye to be an open field or pasture.  I have been hired by several property owners seeking to put a pool in their backyard to find buried buses, trees, and blacktop.  This is because when a developer “scrapes” a subdivision to build roads and other improvement, it is common to show all this debris into a “bury pit.” Other subterranean gems my clients have found have been concrete chunks or rip rap, buried tires and even elephant carcasses and school buses (I do not make this up).
  • Title problems.  As is addressed in this blog entry, there are a host of title problems that can arise in the new construction setting: An unreleased mortgage, an unreleased dower interest of a spouse, easements both of record and prescriptive, and adverse possession claims.  In addition to “running title,” a buyer should obtain a proper survey of property to assure that there are no encroachments upon property he intends to acquire.
Developed lots.

In the case of buying a “developed lot” in a subdivision — residential or commercial — the same variables are typically present.  Again, typically zoning, utility availability and storm drainage are addressed in the “development” and “subdivision” process, but the other issues can be of concern.  We were recently approached by a client who inherited a residential lot, but the lot was too narrow for construction of an appropriate residence.  Another found buried tires on the site.  A third found that the developer had not properly compacted the soil, requiring expensive excavation and foundation work.  Further, new subdivisions frequently (almost always) are accompanied by a set of covenants — enforceable by the developer or neighbors — on the design and use of new construction.

Demolition.

Other clients buy one or more existing structures with the intention of demolishing them  and building on the newly-cleared land.  In these circumstances, there may be restrictions (such as historic districts) that prevent demolition.  Further, when old buildings are demolished and replaced, the new construction may need to comply with entirely new set of restrictions than the old building in terms of lot size, setback lines, building height, building materials, covenants, and building code issues.

Renovation.

Renovating existing structures involves a whole new level of intricate issues.  When renovation is sufficiently significant, an entire floor, improvement or even the hole building then has to be brought up to new building codes.  Further, in tearing out old improvements, there are as many or more surprises — structurally, with mold and hazardous materials (asbestos is common) — than with developing raw land.

Due diligence.

A client and friend preaches repeatedly to me that he has learned — from experience — to be skeptical.  Your eyes are lying to you.  Behind the walls and under the ground, in regulatory restrictions and site limitations, don’t believe your own observations alone.  Rather, work diligently before buying property and certainly before digging into the ground to learn all of the pitfalls and variables of the site.  It an save you time, money and heartache.

Contractual protections.

I have aa saying as an attorney: The best contract can’t make the other party honest or turn a scoundrel into an honorable man.  But it can be used to flesh out issues, and to place the burden on a dishonest seller if he is trying to sell you a “bill of goods.”

Some contractual provisions that can be helpful in the new construction setting are:

  • Obtaining representations and warranties in the contract from the seller.
  • Obtaining all of the seller’s investigations and due diligence documents from his acquisition of the subject property and that he obtained throughout his ownership.
  • Have the seller promise to pay the cost associated with extraordinary sub-surface conditions.
  • Allow for generous due diligence investigations of the property in terms of time and property access during the sue diligence period.
Conclusion.

After reading this blog entry, it would be an entirely rational reaction to never want to undertake the risks and challenges of new construction.  Indeed, knowledgeable buyers see danger (read: costs) lurking behind every corner.  But at the same time, a savvy buyer can — with relative safety — protect himself and seize the opportunity that new construction presents.