Blog - Page 4 of 89 - Finney Law Firm

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

By Christopher P. FinneyMay 27, 2023

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.

Our firm’s racketeering suit (certified as a class action) against Build Realty is featured in this story on WCPO

By Christopher P. FinneyApril 12, 2023

Reporter Paula Christian of WCPO features here the racketeering lawsuit recently certified by Federal District Court Judge Douglas Cole as a class action. The case is against a bevy of defendants, including Build Realty, Edgar Construction, First Title, Gary Bailey and George Triantafilou (among others) for a sinister and complex real estate scheme that defrauded hundreds of local investors out of millions of hard-earned dollars.

Matters remain tied up on stays and motion work, but we hope to move the case along soon. Watch this blog for regular updates.

U.S. District Court Judge Douglas Cole certifies RICO and fiduciary breach class action against Build Realty, Gary Bailey, George Triantafilou and First Title Agency, LLC

By Christopher P. FinneyFebruary 23, 2023February 23, 2023

We will write more on this later, but we are pleased to announce that — six years after we first filed in State Court, and nearly four years after we moved the case to Federal Court — on Tuesday of this week Federal U.S. District Court Judge Douglas R. Cole certified our firm’s RICO and breach of fiduciary duty claims against the following Defendants as a class action:

Build Realty, Inc.
Edgar Construction, LLC
Cincy Construction, LLC
McGregor Construction, LLC
Cowtown Holdings, LLC
Build NKY, LLC
Greenleaf Support Services, LLC
Build SWO, LLC
Gary Bailey (as trustee and individually)
George Triantafilou (as trustee and individually)
G2 Technologies, LLC
GT Financial, LLC
Five Mile Capital Partners, LLC
First Title Agency, LLC

In doing so, Judge Cole certified all victims of the alleged RICO and breach of fiduciary duty scheme as class members and certified a sub-class of investors who had their properties improperly taken away by scheme participants.

A class notice is being negotiated and should be sent to class members within the coming month or so. If you have an updated physical address or email address please email it to [email protected] and we will try to keep you updated on developments.

This is a major victory for victims of this scheme, but we have many miles to trial to achieve final justice in this matter. We will endeavor to keep the public updated through this blog.

For more background on this case, read here, here, here, here and here.

Our able co-counsel in this case is Bill Markovits and the firm of Markovits, Stock and DeMarco.

We are pleased to be “Making a Difference” for our now many clients in this long and very complex litigation.

You may read the Class Certification Order below.

Finney Law Firm warmly welcomes Diana L. Emerson

By Christopher P. FinneyJanuary 9, 2023January 9, 2023

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.

Corporate and LLC beneficial ownership anonymity to reduce starting January 1, 2024

By Eli N. Krafte-JacobsJanuary 6, 2023January 6, 2023

The anonymity of beneficial ownership of corporate and LLC interests has been a “feature” of small business governance for time immemorial.

This has vexed federal, state and local regulators, as well as private litigants trying to get to the bottom of their ownership puzzle. And it has been a source of comfort to owners who want — for whatever motivations — to remain anonymous. As a result, there are limited circumstances in which states (Kentucky, for example) and cities (City of Cincinnati, for example) presently do require disclosure of ownership of LLCs and corporations that hold real property in their jurisdictions.

But, by and large, the beneficial ownership of closely-held corporations and LLCs is a “black hole” in terms of registration of the identities of owners of closely-held businesses and limited liability companies.

In a limited way, that anonymity comes to an end in one year according to a final federal rule issued in September:

As of January 1, 2024 the Corporate Transparency Act requires newly-formed LLCs and corporations to disclose information about their beneficial owners to the federal Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) within 30 days, and
Corporations and LLCs that existed prior to January 1, 2024 must make that same disclosure by January 1, 2025.

The reason for the new law, according to FinCEN, is “to crack down on illicit finance and enhance transparency…to stop criminal actors, including oligarchs, kleptocrats, drug traffickers, human traffickers, and those who would use anonymous shell companies to hide their illicit proceeds.”

FinCEN has also issued a proposed rule (to be finalized later this year) for sharing the information with other federal, state and local agencies. From the proposed rule:

FinCEN’s proposal limits access to beneficial ownership information to Federal agencies engaged in national security, intelligence, or law enforcement activities; state, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies with court authorization; financial institutions with customer due diligence requirements and regulators supervising them for compliance with such requirements; foreign law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, judges, and other agencies that meet specific criteria; and Treasury officers and employees under certain circumstances. FinCEN further proposes to subject each category of authorized recipients to security and confidentiality protocols that align with the scope of the access and use provisions.

In other words, the general public will not have access to beneficial ownership information filed with FinCEN, but it will be shared with state and local law enforcement as appropriate.

These rules will certainly call for the end of 100% anonymity for closely-held corporations and LLCs and a mandatory new federal filing requirement for each entity (presumably updated as ownership changes from time to time). Whether it will change the way small businesses in America are substantively regulated is yet to be seen.

Please contact Eli Krafte-Jacobs (513.797.2853), Isaac Heintz (513.943-6654) or Casey Jones (513.943.5673) for more information on the Corporate Transparency Act and these new regulations or about your closely-held business issues generally.

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

By Christopher P. FinneyDecember 22, 2022January 2, 2023

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

By Christopher P. FinneyDecember 21, 2022December 21, 2022

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.

Ohio Employment Law: Employers Cannot Force Employees to Arbitrate Sexual Harassment Claims.

By Stephen E. ImmNovember 29, 2022December 2, 2022

Mandatory arbitration of employment claims has become almost commonplace in recent decades. The courts have repeatedly upheld the enforceability of arbitration “agreements“ between employees and employers, even though employees typically don’t have any choice in signing them. They are normally given to employees at the time of hire, and employees must sign them in order to get the job and start work.

Lawyers who represent employees in discrimination, harassment, and other employment claims historically have disliked these agreements. They believe that employees often can expect better outcomes from a jury than from an arbitrator. Nevertheless, efforts to fight the enforceability of arbitration agreements have largely been unsuccessful.

With respect to sexual harassment claims, however, that changed this year when a new law went into effect, called the “Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021.” The Act is a federal law that applies to all claims arising out of sexual misconduct, regardless of whether the claim is asserted under a federal or state statute, or under the common law. It gives employees who have sexual harassment or sexual assault claims the right to “opt out” of any mandatory arbitration agreements they may have signed during their employment with the employer they are suing.

This is important not only because it means employees can get their sexual harassment claims heard by a jury, but also because lawsuits are public proceedings, whereas arbitration proceedings are confidential and private. The public nature of litigation can provide employers with an added incentive to settle cases that could cause them embarrassment. It also means that data about lawsuits filed against individual employers, and how employers have handled such lawsuits, are available to the general public.

Some employees who have sexual harassment claims may also have other claims against the same employer that are not related to sexual misconduct. For instance the employee may also have a claim of race discrimination, breach of contract, or unpaid overtime. In this instance, the employee’s case may have to be heard in two different forums. The employee can file a lawsuit over the sexual harassment claim, because the Act says an employer can’t force arbitration of that claim. But the employee may still have to go to arbitration to pursue her other claims, in accordance with the arbitration agreement she signed.

Employees who have potential sexual harassment claims, and employers facing such claims, should definitely be aware that mandatory arbitration agreements are no longer enforceable with regard to such claims. This will dramatically change the landscape of litigation when it comes to these types of cases.

Knowing who to sue: Pre-Suit Discovery vs. John Doe Defendants in Ohio

By Casey A. JonesNovember 29, 2022

It’s easy to assume that, in order to file a lawsuit, you must necessarily know who you are suing and what you are suing for. This is only partially true.

It is actually not at all uncommon for a party to know that they have been wronged in some manner and know that they have viable legal claims as a result of that wrong, yet not know the identity of the party from whom to seek redress. When this situation arises, there are a couple of options.

Doe Defendants

Civ.R. 15(D) states:

“When the plaintiff does not know the name of a defendant, that defendant may be designated in a pleading or proceeding by any name and description. When the name is discovered, the pleading or proceeding must be amended accordingly. The plaintiff, in such case, must aver in the complaint the fact that he could not discover the name. The summons must contain the words ‘name unknown,’ and a copy thereof must be served personally upon the defendant.”

These unknown defendants will often be identified as “John Doe” or “Jane Doe.”

Petition for Pre-Suit Discovery

On the other hand, Ohio law provides with a process by which they can file a “Petition for Discovery,” which is filed like a complaint but, practically speaking, is more akin to a motion asking the court to order another party to produce certain documents or divulge certain information in response to an interrogatory.

The pre-suit discovery process is governed by R.C. 2317.48, which states:

When a person claiming to have a cause of action or a defense to an action commenced against him, without the discovery of a fact from the adverse party, is unable to file his complaint or answer, he may bring an action for discovery, setting forth in his complaint in the action for discovery the necessity and the grounds for the action, with any interrogatories relating to the subject matter of the discovery that are necessary to procure the discovery sought.

Ohio courts have clarified that “R.C. 2317.48 is available to obtain facts required for pleading, not to obtain evidence for purposes of proof.” Marsalis v. Wilson, 149 Ohio App. 3d 637, 642 (2d Dist. 2002). In other words, this is not a free pass for a party to determine whether he or she has a claim or weigh how strong it may be; it is a limited opportunity to ascertain facts that must be alleged in a proper pleading relative to a claim for which the party already has a good faith basis. In nearly every instance, the missing information being sought is the identity of a potential party.

Civ.R. 34(D) further governs this process with regard to requests for documentation. See generally Huge v. Ford Motor Co., 155 Ohio App. 3d 730 (2004). “R.C. 2317.48 and Civ.R. 34(D) work in tandem to govern discovery actions.” Id., at 734. In order to take advantage of this Rule, the party must first make reasonable efforts to obtain the discovery voluntarily. The petition must include:

(a) A statement of the subject matter of the petitioner’s potential cause of action and the petitioner’s interest in the potential cause of action;

(b) A statement of the efforts made by the petitioner to obtain voluntarily the information from the person from whom the discovery is sought;

(d) The names and addresses, if known, of any person the petitioner expects will be an adverse party in the potential action;

(e) A request that the court issue an order authorizing the petitioner to obtain the discovery.

Civ.R. 34(D)(1). The court will issue an order for the discovery if it finds:

(a) The discovery is necessary to ascertain the identity of a potential adverse party;

(b) The petitioner is otherwise unable to bring the contemplated action;

(c) The petitioner made reasonable efforts to obtain voluntarily the information from the person from whom the discovery is sought.

Civ.R. 34(D)(3). Note that, under Civ.R. 34(D), that the discovery is needed “to ascertain the identity of a potentially adverse party” is not just a practical effect but, rather, a requirement of the Rule.

Which is best?

If a party can reasonably identify and is merely missing the name of the adverse party or parties or believes they can obtain information from the unnamed parties via discovery once the action is filed, naming a “Doe Defendant” under Civ.R. 15(D) is likely the most efficient route. However, if additional information or documentation is necessary to even begin to identify the adverse party, an action for pre-suit discovery may be warranted.

Statute of Limitations Implications

One common misconception is that an action for pre-suit discovery under R.C. 2317.48 and/or Civ.R. 34(D) or, alternatively, naming a Doe Defendant somehow preserves or tolls the statute of limitations until the party can be identified and the ultimate action (or amended action) brought against them. This is not the case. In 2010, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued its decision in Erwin v. Bryan, holding that it could not, “through a court rule, alter the General Assembly’s policy preferences on matters of substantive law, and Civ.R. 15(D) therefore may not be construed to extend the statute of limitations beyond the time period established by the General Assembly.” 125 Ohio St. 3d 519, 525 (2010). “Civ.R. 15(D) does not authorize a claimant to designate defendants using fictitious names as placeholders in a complaint filed within the statute-of-limitations period and then identify, name, and personally serve those defendants after the limitations period has elapsed.” Id., at 526.

While Erwin does not make as explicit of a finding as to R.C. 2317.48 and/or Civ.R. 34(D), its inclusion of these rules in the same discussion, as well as the nature of such rules (contemplating an action exclusively for discovery and not naming the adverse party or parties, as they cannot be ascertained without the same) strongly suggests an identical result. Indeed, the statute of limitations is intended to encourage parties to be diligent in investigating their claims and, if the identity of an adverse party is in question, the spirit (and, likely, the letter) of the law would require such party to initiate a discovery action with sufficient time to obtain the discovery and then bring the ultimate action.

Pins and needles

By Christopher P. FinneyNovember 4, 2022November 4, 2022

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.

Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 89 Next page