Hi, How Can We Help You?

Author Archives: Christopher P. Finney

More on upcoming property tax valuation increases

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

For both commercial properties as well as single family homes, owners have flooded us with inquiries about their notices from County Auditors in Hamilton, Butler, Clermont and Montgomery Counties as to new property valuations.  We can’t imagine the number of calls the County Auditors must be getting.

A few guideposts for you:

  • First, read this important blog entry that essentially tells you that the first 30% of the valuation increases in southwest Ohio will not result in an increase (or at least not a significant increase) in your actual tax bill.
  • Second, Auditor’s property valuation is not some magical number — for the January 2024 tax bill, it is to be the fair market value as of January 1, 2023.  Thus, if your property was worth more then than in the prior valuation period, you should expect a valuation increase — perhaps one even above average for all properties in the marketplace.  Some clients seem to think that since valuations were less than what they thought the property was actually worth in the past, the Auditor’s valuation process is supposed to yield a lower number.  Well, it’s not.
  • Third, if your property was purchased since the last triennial valuation date (January 1, 2020), the sale price likely will be reflected in the valuation.  As this blog entry addresses, a recent arm’s length sale essentially — and largely irrebuttably — IS the value by law.
  • Fourth, if your property falls in one of the gazelle categories of properties whose values have leaped ahead of the market — single family homes, warehouse and industrial properties, and apartment buildings — you should both celebrate your good fortune and expect a bigger tax bill as a result.
  • Fifth, on the flip side, if you are a victim of the weak office market or the mall or downtown retail market weaknesses, you should should see some tax relief in the January tax bills.
  • Sixth, gas prices are up, grocery prices are up, car prices are up.  You have not had a valuation increase in three years.  Wouldn’t you expect your tax bill would rise some, at least modestly?
  • Seventh, for both buyers and sellers in today’s market, the looming valuation increases create both a possible problem and an opportunity as to contractual tax prorations for sales between now and January when the new — very different — valuations come out.  Read here for more detail on this.
  • Eighth, remember, the Board of Revision process to challenge property valuations is a two-way street.  If your property truly is undervalued, you risk an increase.  Cautiously keep in mind the upward dynamics of the real estate market over the past three years.  You could wind up with an increased valuation as opposed to the sought reduction if you overplay your hand.
  • Finally, I had a client recently ask me “why would single family home valuations be increasing in Cincinnati?” and I swear he must live under a rock.  I responded, “haven’t you seen newspaper articles explaining that Cincinnati has had one of the hottest housing markets in the nation since the start of COVID?”  The response, “ummm, no.”  It is surprising since we deal with this every day, and to some extent it is just denial of the obvious fact that we are blessed in Cincinnati with a fantastic housing and commercial real estate market.  Enjoy it while it lasts!

If, after reading this and the prior blog entry on the new valuations coming out in January, you still have tax valuation questions, please contact me (513.943.6655) or another member of our tax team.  We are glad to help.

More detail on Remote Online Notaries (RONs)

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

In the category of “you learn something new all the time,” this week I learned something new about Remote Online Notaries (“RONs”) used for real estate closings.

The scenario was that a seller was unaware until he reached the closing table that the signature of his wife — married since the house was acquired — was needed on the deed in order to release her rights of dower.  Unfortunately, the wife was (a) a non-citizen of the USA, (b) she had a green card and had resided in the US for years, and (c) was physically located in Germany as of the time of the closing.

In the days before RONs, the only option was (a) email the deed to the signer and have them print it out in the remote jurisdiction (usually on funny-sized paper), (b) make an appointment at the U.S. Embassy for an overseas equivalent of a notary (or acknowledgement) (typically you can’t just drop in unannounced), (c) wait for that  appointment and (d) Fed Ex the deed back to Cincinnati.

The wife was able to get a quick appointment at the U.S. Embassy and would be able to get a deed back to Cincinnati about five days after the initial closing (even including an intervening weekend).  Unfortunately, the buyer just could not wait the five days and was throwing a fit, demanding thousands of dollars of concessions for (what we saw as) a relatively short delay.

So, RON to the rescue, right?

Not so fast.  The title underwriter’s (the guys who ultimately make the call as to whether we can close or not) first reaction was “so long as she is a US citizen, we can use a RON closing.”  I replied, “well no, in addition to being out of the country she is not a US citizen.”

Digging deeper (which we appreciate our title underwriter doing), it turns out that the “US citizen” thing is not a bright line test.  Rather, RON closings use sophisticated Knowledge-based Authentication (“KBA”).  These are whose odd security questions that pull and query minute details from your past (many times when I am asked a KBA question, I don’t even know the answer, even though the question is about something I should know!).  Well, as it turns out, those KBA questions are primarily pulled from information contained deep in your credit report, and — if your contacts to the US and its credit-reporting system ae sufficiently robust — RONs can possibly work for non-US citizens, including those who at the time are overseas.  (You actually find out “if it works” during the execution of a RON closing.)

So, the closing was saved — RON got it done within hours of the first phone call.  And I learned more about RON, citizenship and what “KBA” is.

#MakingADifference

 

Alarm Tax Class Action Update: Checks have been mailed

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

As we reported here, Finney Law Firm participated in a successful class action to force the City of Cincinnati to stop collecting alarm registration fees and to refund illegally-collected fees for years past.

Those refund checks were dropped in the mail over the past few weeks and the final batch is to be mailed this week.

In the event that you did not properly receive a refund check due to you, contact the City’s False Alarm Reduction Unit at (513) 352-1272.

If you continue to have problems, do let Chris Finney (513.943.6655) know.

So, the Auditor tells you your property valuation is going up, waaaay up….

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

Our phones are ringing and email boxes are filling up at Finney Law Firm about notices from County Auditors throughout the state of Ohio about dramatic property tax valuation increases coming with the January 2024 tax bills.

Read this shocking paragraph from an article from Paula Christian at WCPO (Channel 9):

The [Ohio Department of Taxation] recommended a 43% increase in property values in Clermont County and 42% in Butler County. The updates will be reflected in 2024 tax bills, which are sent out early next year and will last for three years until reappraisal.

So, the natural reaction from property owners receiving such notices is that their tax bill (i.e., the amount of taxes they are obligated to pay) will rise a similar amount.  This is not true — not by a long shot — given the intricacies of Ohio property taxation.

How could that be?  We explain:

  • First, the County Auditors throughout Ohio are charged by statute with re-valuing properties in their County every three years (a “Triennial”).  The statutory duty is to value each parcel at its fair market value (in the case of new tax valuations coming in January of next year, that is a January 1, 2023 valuation).
  • In southwest Ohio, January of 2024 will see new valuations for each of Hamilton, Butler, Clermont and Montgomery Counties.  Warren County will have new valuations in January of 2025.
  • It is not the Auditor’s job to show mercy, or to “shade” the fact that the real estate market has changed dramatically since the prior 3-year valuation date (in the case of Counties having new valuation in January of 2024, that would be a January 1, 2020 valuation as a comparison).  They are obligated by statute to value properties fairly (i.e., what a reasonable buyer would pay a reasonable seller for that property).
  • Your property taxes are, very roughly, a result of this formula:

(Tax Valuation * Tax rate) – certain credits = tax bill.

  • Thus, it is natural to assume that to the same degree your valuation rises, so does your tax bill.
  • However, it is much more complicated than that.
    • About 10% of your tax bill is inside millage which does stay at the same tax rate (i.e., it does generate more revenue in direct proportion to your increasing valuation).  But that is a very small part of your tax bill.
    • About 90% of your tax bill is outside millage, which is a result of tax levies that year after year generate a fixed amount of revenue for the levy recipients (depending on the district, schools are about 55-70% of your tax bill).  For example, a specific levy passed by the voters years ago may generate a fixed $40,000,000 in taxes each year (regardless of inflation or valuation increases).
    • That means that for the great majority of your Ohio tax bill, as the valuations increase, the rate rolls back, generating the roughly same revenue for the levy recipient overall each and every year.
    • Therefore, if your property has a lower-than-average valuation increase, the outside millage portion of your tax bill will actually decrease.  To the extent that your increase is merely average for that taxing district, the outside millage portion stays the same.  And to the extent that your valuation increase is more than average, the outside millage portion of your taxes will rise, but only to the extent of that excess increase.
    • Remember the last school levy campaign where the pro-levy advocates told you that “taxes don’t keep pace with inflation”?  Well, as a result of the formula set forth above, that’s actually true.

Do remember that when you get a changed value, that’s the first change in three years, so the increase reflects that entire Triennial period (i.e., 8% per year compounded would exceed a 25% valuation increase over three years).

Also keep in mind that certain categories of real estate have in fact seen dramatic changes since three years ago.  Indeed, our region has seen much greater-than-average appreciation than the rest of the nation for single family homes: “Cincinnati has seen the highest percentage of home-sale price increases in the country over the last year.”    As a result, our view is that property values in certain categories of real estate have skyrocketed in the past few years, especially single family residential and apartments, as well as warehouse and industrial properties.  Office properties, especially downtown, may have seen a decrease in valuation.  County Auditors simply are required by state law — as overseen by the State Department of Taxation — to recognize the full measure of those increases in their triennial valuation work. They have no choice.

Chicken Little cries from taxpayers that “the sky is falling” as a result of these properly-recognized valuation hikes are vastly over-stated.  For most taxpayers, the increase in their tax actually paid will be less than the inflation over that Triennial cycle.

By the way, two of the primary bases we see clients try to raise against the valuation increases of their properties are simply not valid in Ohio:

  • “My property could not have risen in value by this amount.”  While that statement well could be true, the Auditor may have undervalued your property in prior years, resulting in an above-market hike.
  • “The Auditor has valued four similar houses on my street lower than my valuation.”  As entirely unfair as it may seem, the value the Auditor places on another property — as similar in location, size, age and other characteristics as it may be — is irrelevant as a matter of law.  What is relevant are sales of similar properties (which is different than the Auditor’s opinion as to values).

This all leads to a significant caution for those desiring to charge into the Board of Revision and challenge the value of their property: The Board can raise your property value even more if the then-current valuation does not reflect market.  Proceed with great caution.

If you have questions about your new tax valuation, please call the professionals at the Finney Law Firm.  We can answer your questions as well as challenge any valuation that exceeds fair market value of your property.  Contact Jessica Gibson (513.943.5677) or Chris Finney (513.943.6655) to help with that assignment.

 

Diana L. Emerson

Finney Law Firm warmly welcomes Diana L. Emerson

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

We are pleased to announce the latest addition to Finney Law Firm, attorney Diana L. Emerson.  Diana earned her Juris Doctor degree from the J. David Rosenberg College of Law at the University of Kentucky in the spring of 2022 and joined the Kentucky bar in the fall.  She joins our Labor and Employment Department headed by Stephen E. Imm.

Diana earned her bachelor’s degree in History and Social Science from Lindsey Wilson College and thereafter worked on Capital Hill as a Staff Assistant for a United States Representative of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

In order to “Make a Difference” for our clients, we continuously invest in new talent and the addition of Diana is  significant and tangible part of that commitment.

 

Judge Robert Ruehlman

The case of the $222,836.53 tree — yet another win, this one with punitive damages and attorneys fees!

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

Today brought to a Finney Law Firm client a judgment for $222,836.53 for trespass onto his residential property and the removal of a tree and a portion of a wooden fence.

It’s been a big week for the Finney Law Firm in many ways, closing out yet another record year for the law firm.  And today we got our second huge, years-in-the-works victory in one week.  The Cincinnati/Alarms Registration case (final entry linked here) was five years in the making and this new “tree” case took 39 months to bring to conclusion.

The win was significant for several reasons.  First, this was the last civil trial for Hamilton County, Ohio Common Pleas Judge Judge Robert Ruehlman, the longest-ever serving Judge on the Hamilton County Common Pleas bench.  He retires from the bench January 2, 2023.    Second, awards of punitive damages and attorneys fees are fairly uncommon (either cases settle or the requisite legal standard is not met for punitive damages).  But, the Judge ruled that such standard for proof of the case and an award of attorneys fees was met by Plaintiffs, and was met by “clear and convincing evidence.”

A copy of this “tree case” order is here.  Congratulations to our client, William Chapel, and to our team consisting of Christopher Finney, Julie Gugino, Jessica Gibson and Kimi Richards, along with our expert witnesses and A/V consultant (Kevin Lewis and Media Stew!) for a wonderfully executed case from intake and filing to trial and judgment.

Now on to collections!

 

Judge Wende Cross issues Order granting final Class Action Settlement in Cincinnati Alarms Case

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

A big win was had today in Court for two classes of Cincinnati taxpayers.

After more than four years of litigation — through Common Pleas Court, the Court of Appeals, an attempt for Ohio Supreme Court review and back — today Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Wende Cross signed the Order Approving Class Action Settlement in the case of Andrew White et al. v. City of Cincinnati, Ohio, Hamilton County, Ohio Common Pleas Court Case No. A1804206 (known as the “Alarms Tax Case”).

Background

The Order established a common fund of $3,277,802.25 from illegal alarms registration fees  (NOTE: not false alarm fees) collected by the City of Cincinnati from 2014 to present.  That nearly $3.3 million fund is to pay refunds to those who paid the illegal tax and attorneys fees incurred in the litigation.  The litigation in this matter was led by Maurice Thompson of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law.  Finney Law Firm and attorneys Christopher Finney and Julie Gugino served as co-counsel.

As we explain in more detail here, Judge Cross certified two classes to receive refunds (a) residential and (b) non-residential payors of the Cincinnati alarms tax.  The City charged residential alarm-system-owners $50 per year to register their systems and commercial owners $100 per year to register their systems.  Last fall, the 1st District Court of Appeals unanimously ruled the tax illegal under Ohio law and unconstitutional, overruling a trial Court ruling on the same subject.  In March of this year, the Ohio Supreme Court preserved that victory for Cincinnati property owners when it refused to accept discretionary review of the case.

Making a difference

“Making a difference” for our clients is the mission of Finney Law Firm and its capable attorneys.  In this case, we successfully enjoined the enforcement of the illegal tax and achieved more than seven years of refunds for payors.  The victory was won under both state law (the assessment was an illegal tax) and the U.S. Constitution (the tax was an infringement on free speech rights by preventing or making more difficult reporting of crimes to the police).

How to get your refund

If you were a Cincinnati alarm registration payor at any time from 2014 to today, you should already have received a postcard, email or voicemail about the refund.  If we have a current address for you (i.e., you received the postcard), you should be receiving a refund by by February 21, 2023.

If you have not gotten a mailed postcard, please make sure we have your name and current address (and the address for which the alarm tax was paid) (will post information shortly of where to write with this info).  Write to [email protected] with this information: your name, the payor’s name, your address, and the property for which the alarm registration fee was paid.

 

 

 

 

 

Pins and needles

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

In pre-litigation and litigation, we frequently have clients who are understandably anxious to resolve their disputes.  They typically are concerned with the open-ended liability that can result from a claimed breach of real estate contract or a business deal gone bad — and the legal fees that inevitably will come from them.  And as a result of that unknown exposure, they want swift finality to the matter.  They are constantly on pins and needles to close this small chapter of their life.

A good settlement versus a quick settlement

Unfortunately, getting a good resolution frequently is inconsistent with the desire for a quick resolution.  Patience, many times, is a virtue that pays good dividends.  This does not mean we typically recommend litigation as a solution.  Litigation is lengthy, unpredictable and terribly expensive, and is accompanied by the same sense of unease until that long course to resolution.  But the other side can sense when you are anxious to put a dispute behind you — attorneys are especially good at dragging things out to achieve a more favorable resolution than the courts would provide to them precisely because of that desire of the opposing party for quick closure.  Showing that insistence on a quick and final settlement can drive up the cost of a resolution exponentially.  So, slow down.  Relax.

Why the anxiety?

The nature of our legal system is that we frequently need to give “lawyerly” answers to what seem to be simple questions:

  • Am I liable?
  • What is the extent of my financial exposure?

These vague answers are so because many times the answer from a review of the documents and a review of the correspondence and oral exchanges leave a conclusion unclear.  Many times — most times — clients don’t tell us the whole story.  Sometimes, we are wrong.  And even if we as attorneys can give a clear anticipated outcome and we are correct in our analysis, the Judge (or Arbitrator) may in the end not agree with us.

We read the documents and do our best to understand the facts, and conclude: “Your exposure should be limited to ‘X,'” but the Judge may later conclude it is “X” times 3.5.  And that is so because we can be wrong or the Judge can decide the case incorrectly (in our opinion).  Further, we conclude “the fees and expenses to get to that conclusion should be ‘Y,'” but opposing counsel and judges can make the odyssey much more expensive.

Perhaps my bedside manner makes clients uneasy because I do have and share “worst case scenario” war stories where liability and legal fees well exceed that which should reasonably be anticipated.  But for every one of those legal calamities, we have 20 or 40 cases that resolve quickly and fairly, if not inexpensively.

So, relax

I recently was consulted by a physician who had contracted to purchase a small investment property, and he had decided he contractually  agreed to pay too much and wanted to back out of the deal.  He was more or less crawling out of his skin to have resolution of the matter — and his total exposure if he was in fact found to be in breach of the contract was on the order of maybe $20,000.  And this was the worst case for him.

But he was anxious, and called me four or five times in a two-day period stressing about this “what if” and that “maybe” scenario.

I asked him: “You are a doctor.  What kind of doctor?”  He responded: “I am an oncologist.”  So I said: “OK, let me understand.  Every day you have to tell someone — and their family — that they or their loved one has cancer.  Is that right?”  He says: “Correct.”  And, I further inquired: “Yet you are stressed about a simple contract claim that might cost you $10,000 or $20,000 if you ultimately are sued, is that right?”  “That’s right,” he responds,  “But I see your point.”

Another case I have my client terminated a residential purchase contract because the strict terms of the financing contingency were not met — the bank had a higher interest rate and a higher down payment than the contingency contemplated. The buyer sent a contract termination letter and the seller responded with a rejection of that — but then just sat and sat and did not place the house back on the market — at least not right away.

I explained to the client that “these almost all work themselves out without litigation.”  Further, he has an appraisal of the property at the purchase price.  If that is the value that would be adopted by a court in litigation, then the seller has no damages anyway.  Further, if they refuse to place the home back on the market, the seller will have violated his duty to “mitigate his damages,” weakening the seller’s claim in court.

Still, the client and his wife are anxious, concerned about the many possible outcomes to the suit.  And we don’t as of this writing know exactly how it will turn out.

Conclusion 

No one has cancer.  No one lost an arm or an eye.  No one is going to die.  You are not going to end up in bankruptcy court as a result of this contract claim.  Be patient and allow the other side to work out their “mad” and realize the cost and time that litigation will take.  It will all be OK.  That does not mean fighting until the last breath and last dollar is the best strategy, but being somewhat patient as a settlement works its way out can be advisable.

As to code enforcement and nuisance actions we strongly recommend “comply”

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

Friday, our founder Christopher Finney was featured on a panel presentation before the Cincinnati Bar Association on “Code Enforcement from the Municipal Perspective.”  The panel included Erica Faaborg, Deputy City Solicitor of Cincinnati, Kathy Ryan of Wood and Lamping, and Stacey Purcell of Legal Aid of Cincinnati.

The panel discussion covered a wide range of code enforcement and nuisance actions, many of which fall outside the scope of what Finney Law Firm typically would handle such as slum landlords without heat and tenant hoarding.

Our primary experience falls in two areas: (i) Chronic and acute health and building code violations, with the municipality typically seeking an injunction and a fine against the property owner and (ii) nuisance actions seeking either the forced closure of the nuisance business (usually either a motel or a liquor establishment) or the appointment of a receiver to manage, fix up and sell a property.

In both instances, in nearly every jurisdiction in question, the municipality is simply seeking compliance.  In most instances, they neither want your money nor control of your property. They want the nuisance conduct (underage drinking, violence, drug dealing, prostitution) stopped or the the property fixed up.  Period.

As three starting points, commonly I advise:

  • Maybe our client has a legitimate defense, the nuisance does not exist, is not as exaggerated as the municipality claims, or we have an over-zealous building inspector picking a fight with a single property owner. But (a) this usually can be worked out (as their objective typically is compliance, we universally find they are clear and reasonable when asked to be) and (b) the Judge who will hear the case lives in our community and typically wants zealous code enforcement — we all want to live in a nice community, right?  As to judicial matters, these are “police powers” enforcement and the Judge almost never wants to second guess the City in a code issue. It will be very hard to overcome the presumption that the City is being reasonable in its enforcement.
  • Even if the client is right, the risk of lost and cost of litigation pales in comparison to the cost of fixing up the property or abating the nuisance.
  • And, worst of all, if the City is victorious in seeking the appointment of a receiver for your property, it’s “game over” for the property owner in terms of preserving any value from — any equity in — the property.  Why? Because the lawyers and receiver take over the property, repair it at your expense, charge their professional fees to the project and pay themselves from the income and proceeds, and sell the property quickly for what they see as a fair price to a new operator.  You can kiss your years-developed, hard-earned equity goodbye.  In the case of liquor establishments, if you are ordered closed, your millions of dollars in capital to develop and promote an establishment are out the window if you are forcibly shut down.

As a result, we strongly recommend working with building officials toward a reasonable compromise for enforcement — it can end the dispute, it improves the property or its operation, and it makes our communities stronger.  More importantly, in in the long measure, it saves the client money by investing in his property or business rather than running up a huge — and likely non-productive — legal tab.

Having said all of this — and we do counsel compliance and cooperation — a business owner or property owner does not need to just “lay down” for expensive and over-the-top enforcement.  Our firm has fought and won amazing battles against State and local governments, all the way to the US Supreme Court.  We have successfully challenged entire legislative schemes, including pre-sale and pre-leasing inspections, which are a constitutional overreach, in multiple jurisdictions.  Our firm has made a name for itself fighting and winning against bad government actors.  Our tools include the US and State Constitutions, state statute, the State of Ohio taxpayer statutes against both cities and county commissions, Open Meetings laws, Public Records laws, and other statutory avenues.  But before launching into these battles, we want to make sure we are positioned to win and that the client appreciates the costs and risks for undertaking these fights.

Today’s NYT: Insurance coverage, “You’ve got to provide notice early and often”

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

Today’s New York Times has an instructive tale in insurance coverage in a high-profile U.S. Supreme Court case.  There, Harvard University is embroiled in expensive and protracted litigation over its affirmative action policies.

For such litigation, it had an initial $2.5 million deductible under its primary carrier, and then $25 million in primary coverage.  It however, failed to notify its “excess coverage” carrier, which provided an additional $15 million in coverage.  Because the litigation lasted so long and cost so much, that failure to timely notify the carrier — a policy requisite — it may have deprived itself of that needed $15 million in coverage.

The lesson, as quoted in the article, is, as to coverage: “you’ve got to provide notice early and often.”  Our position is: “When in doubt, notify.” (Clients are rightly concerned that notice causes increased rates and/or cancelation.  Our experience is different: If you are an overall responsible insured, even with occasional claims, even meritorious claims, it should not impact rates or coverages, or if so not greatly.)

The matter is pending in court, and in the hallowed halls at Harvard the question of whether someone is going to lose their job is open as well.

Our favorite Courts reporter — really focused on the US Supreme Court — Alan Liptak, brings us this report.

1 2 3 4 5 … 58