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.

Ohio empowers its citizenry in some instances to act on behalf of municipalities “to restrain the misapplication of funds of the municipal corporation, the abuse of its corporate powers, or the execution or performance of any contract made on behalf of the municipal corporation in contravention of the laws of or ordinance governing it.” (R.C. 733.56) And provides that when successful, the taxpayer who initiated the lawsuit is entitled to have the costs of the suit paid by the municipality – including her attorney fees.

In 2014 a North College Hill taxpayer brought suit to enjoin the city from performing on an unlawful contract entered into with XPEX, LLC. The city argued that under Ohio’s political subdivision immunity act (R.C. 2744) it was immune from suit because the taxpayer sought to have her attorney fees paid as provided by the statute.

The trial court rightly denied the city’s argument and city appealed the decision.

Earlier this month, the First District Court of Appeals joined the trial court in rejecting the city’s argument finding that the political subdivision immunity act was not applicable because (i) the case was not a tort case; and (ii) an award for attorney fees under R.C. 733.56 does not constitute “monetary damages.”

Citizen activists should be particularly heartened by this decision as two of the court of appeals judges in this unanimous decision were recently elected to serve on Ohio’s Supreme Court.

The Court of Appeals decision can be read here.

 

Thus, Ohio taxpayers remain empowered to act as watchdogs over their public officials.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Today’s USA today has a detailed update of our case before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio wherein Tea Party and other liberty-oriented groups are suing the IRS for illegal and unconstitutional targeting of their non-profit applications.

Investigative reporter James Pilcher does a thorough job of updating the litigation that the IRS has worked hard to drag out.  It has already gone on for three and a half years.

Our firm is local co-counsel to the Tea Party groups, which have been certified as the only class action in the nation challenging the IRS conduct under Lois Lerner, the director of the  Exempt Organizations Unit of the IRS.  The matter erupted into a nation-wide controversy in 2013, culminating in Ms. Lerner invoking her Fifth Amendment defense against self-incrimination in refusing to testify before Congress.

Read the story here.

As we have shared previously, this firm is pleased to act as co-counsel for the only certified class action against the IRS on behalf of Tea Party groups nationwide.  There have been recently interesting developments in that case.

First, Judge Dlott recused herself from the case and it was assigned to Federal District Court Judge Michael Barrett.  Second, Judge Barrett made his first major ruling two weeks ago in that case on a series of motions that resulted in an order requiring the IRS to process the long-delayed application (like six year delay) of the tax exemption application of one of our named clients, the Texas Tea Party Patriots.  You may read that ruling here.

Second, other Tea Party groups are also seeing their applications finally being processed.  Today’s Washington Times reports that after a seven-year delay of the tax exemption application of the Albuquerque Tea Party, the IRS finally denied that application.  Read that story here.

We hope to have further significant developments in that case in the near future.