Hi, How Can We Help You?

Author Archives: Christopher P. Finney

Massachusetts False Claims statute challenged

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

On the heels of Judge Black’s historic decision striking down Ohio’s false claims statute as a violation of the First Amendment, a Plaintiff in Massachusetts is challenging the constitutionality of a similar statute in that state.

There, the statute calls for direct criminal prosecution of those who are claimed to have made a false statement during the course of a political campaign.  In contrast, in Ohio, there first must be a proceeding and finding of violation before the Ohio Elections Commission.  Indeed, the Plaintiff in the Massachusetts action has been charged criminally for a claimed false statement made about a candidate during the course of an election campaign.

The Boston Globe reports that noted Constitutional scholar Lawrence Tribe of Harvard says of the law: “It’s dramatically unconstitutional in its sweep….This is an easy one.”

Read the entire story here.

 

Be careful of recoupment of reduced taxation of current agricultural use valuation

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

The Ohio legislature has provided for significantly reduced property tax valuation (and thus, reduced property taxes) for property used for qualifying agricultural purposes.  This is referred to in the Ohio Revised Code as “Current Agricultural Use Valuation” and is shorted as “CAUV.”  This reduction is embodied at O.R.C Section 5713.31.

However, when the owner of property subject to such reduced valuation changes its use from a qualified agricultural use, Ohio Revised Code Sections 5713.34 and .35 provide that the savings for the past three years are to be recouped.  This can be a whopping one-time tax bill!

Further,  the recoupment is a lien against the real estate retroactive to the first of the year in which the change of use occurs.  Thus, when a change of use occurs in conjunction with a transfer of real estate, the buyer and seller need to carefully allocate between themselves the amount of such CAUV recoupment.

Because the seller received the benefit of the reduction; but it is the buyer’s change of use that is causing the CAUV recoupment to become due, it is not always understood between the parties who should bear this expense.

A buyer will be “stuck” with this CAUV recoupment charge as a lien against his property.  It is prudent for parties, Realtors and attorneys to assure the issue is addressed between the parties in the contract and at the closing, to avoid an unpleasant and expensive post-closing surprise.

The Listing Agreement: All Realtor agency agreements must have definitive expiration dates

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

It is a violation of Ohio license law, and likely will void Ohio Realtor agency agreements, to fail to include in such instruments a firm expiration date.  There is no limitation as to how long the term of such agreements must be, but simply that they must expire on a date certain.

O.R.C. Section 4535.18(A)(28) provides that it is a violation of Ohio license law for:

Having failed to put definite expiration dates in all written agency agreements to which the broker is a party.

For purposes of this section, an “agency agreement” should be considered any listing agreement (whether for sale or lease and whether exclusive agency agreement or exclusive right to sell/lease), any property management agreement, and any contract for buyer representation.

Our attorneys once handled a case for a client under which he had entered into a settlement agreement with a client upon the early termination by the owner of a listing agreement. As a compromise, the Realtor agreed with the owner that whenever the owner decided to again place the house not he market, it would be with the subject Realtor.  The problem was that the Realtor did not list a definite expiration of the right to list, and thus, arguably, the agreement violated the referenced code section.

So, on standard listing agreements and non-customary agreements to list property for sale or lease, all must have definite expiration dates in them.

 

Maple Heights, OH Mayor sued for releasing income tax data of Council member

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

In one of the more outrageous political acts we have witnessed, in last fall’s election on a Charter Amendment banning Red Light Cameras, officials of the City of Maple Heights (a suburb of Cleveland) obtained and released confidential income tax information of initiative proponent Bill Brownlee, a member of the  City Council.

The information was in a flyer ostensibly designed and distributed to dissuade voters from voting for the ballot initiative, but appeared more aimed at smearing several of the Mayor’s political opponents.

Ohio Revised Code Section 718.13(A) expressly makes all information in municipal tax returns confidential.  This protection is then repeated in the Maple Heights Municipal Code. 

The Mayor, the Law Director, and the Council President also have worked in other ways to target their political opponent and suppress his speech.

Our firm filed suit for Bill Brownlee two weeks ago to recover damages arising from the referenced conduct and discourage its repetition.  A link to the suit is here.

A fundamental of the practice of law: A law license

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

Is it so simple to engage in the practice of law to print business cards holding yourself out as an attorney, and to engage clients? Apparently so, even in the internet era.

Right here in Cincinnati, as our friends at Kegler, Hill, Brown and Ritter report here, Mary E. Hernandez signed up clients and collected legal fees — although may not have actually rendered any legal services — from an unsuspecting immigration client.

Mary has been disciplined by the Ohio Supreme Court, although apparently not criminally prosecuted.

Read the story here.

 

Property tax reduction class taught to Cincinnati Realtors

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

Residential and commercial Realtors from throughout Cincinnati today attended “Property Tax Valuation Reduction” at the Cincinnati Area Board of Realtors taught by Chris Finney and Hamilton County Auditor Dusty Rhodes.

Finney and Rhodes have hosted the three-hour class for the past six years together, and it is always well-attended.  The class covers specifics of Ohio property taxation in detail, as well as addresses the mechanics of the tax valuation reduction process before Ohio’s 88 Boards of Revision and the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals.

Mr. Finney will be teaching further 1-hour free classes on the topic on February 24 and 26 for members of the general public.  More details on those classes will follow.

 

“Is my property’s tax valuation too high?”

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

Since our firm assists property owners in reducing the taxes on their real property by challenging the valuation placed by the County Auditor on that property, we are frequently asked “is my property valuation too high?”  Indeed, we provide a free initial assessment of property valuation to ascertain if savings might be available through the Board of Revision process.

As a starting point, “tax valuation” should follow the simple formula of “what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller for the property.”  The Boards of Revision of Ohio largely follow the same rules marketplace participants follow: Valuation should reflect the actual value.

Two fallacies about valuation:

1)  Many owners think their property must be over-valued if they experienced a significant increase in valuation from the prior triennial.  This simply is not true.  It is entirely possible the property was — and still is — significantly under-valued.  Just because a property experienced a significant — or above market average — increase in valuation means nothing.  The new valuation is compared to current parker, not prior valuation.

2)  Many property owners want to compare their Auditor’s valuation to that of their neighbors’ property.  But this is a false comparison.  What the Auditor thinks your neighbor’s property is worth is simply not evidence of value before the Board of Revision.  Comparable sales in your neighborhood, or new construction data is appropriate evidence.

 

New valuations on January 2015 tax bills for Hamilton, Butler and Clermont Counties

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

Property owners in Hamilton, Butler and Clermont Counties, as well as major metropolitan areas in Ohio Montgomery County (Dayton), Franklin County (Columbus) and Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) all have new Auditor’s valuations on their January 2015 tax bills.  (New values will be out in Warren County next January.)  In those counties, the County Auditor has just completed its triennial (every three years) valuation for each parcel in their jurisdiction.

The new valuations, effective as of January 1, 2014, may all be challenged in a proceeding before the County Board of Revision this year, even if you previously challenged that valuation.  One of the benefits of winning a tax reduction is that the savings is guaranteed to last for at least three years, and it may well endure much longer than that.

The attorneys of the Finney Law Firm have handled thousands of tax valuation appeals, some involving tens of millions of dollars of savings, over the past decade before more than half of the Boards of Revision throughout Ohio.

Please call Anna Ausman ([513] 943-6653) for a free initial evaluation of your property to ascertain if savings may be available to you.

SCOTUS gives prolonged rescission period to homeowners where lender fails to provide Truth-in-Lending disclosures

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that homeowners had a right to rescind their mortgage loan for up to three years after the loan origination date if the lender failed to provide the requisite “Truth-in-Lending” disclosures.

The decision, Jesinoski v. Countrywide, is here.  A Reuters article on the decision is here.

1 … 45 46 47 48 49 … 58