Ivy Pointe Title, LLC is a rapidly-growing residential and commercial title insurance company primarily serving Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana that presently seeks a marketing director who will design, implement and lead marketing efforts to residential and commercial lenders, residential and commercial Realtors, and investors, including:

  • Development and implementation of a comprehensive marketing program.
  • Deft use of internet-based marketing tools, including Constant Contact, our WordPress blog, as well as sophisticated paid and earned social media marketing.
  • Personal outreach to lenders, Realtors and investors.
  • Coordination of personalized contacts by our team of eight attorneys.

Ivy Pointe Title, LLC is run by President Richard Turner, an attorney with 17 years of experience, and is closely affiliated with Finney Law Firm, LLC.  We currently have offices in both Eastgate and Mt. Adams.

Our firm is committed to meeting the demanding requirements of the real estate. lending and title industries, using the latest technology, and tightly conforming with demanding legal constraints upon the industry.  Additions to our team must share our commitment to quality, timely service delivery, transparent communications with transaction participants, and aggressive use of cutting-edge technology to achieve these ends.

The salary for the position will be competitive and will accompanied by a generous performance-based bonus structure.  Our firm offers excellent benefits, including a 401K program.

Requirements to be considered to join our team are:

  • At least three years of experience in the real estate, title or mortgage lending industry;
  • Bachelors degree;
  • A commitment to quality and timely service delivery; and
  • Advanced use of social media and internet marketing and communication tools.

Interested applicants may submit their resume to Anna Ausman at [email protected].  Applicants are advised to review our title company and law firm web sites to become familiar with the services we offer and the quality we deliver.

Let’s face it, the high cost of litigation drives the outcome for most litigation, as most litigation is low-dollar litigation The vast majority of cases for individuals and business do not involve millions of dollars or momentous constitutional issues.

Thus, Chief Justice’s Roberts comments of today urging trial courts and litigants to achieve a swifter and a more efficient route for litigation has application to the majority of cases this firm handles.

Unfortunately, one party or another to litigation frequently has reason to obstruct the case getting to trial and driving up the cost of litigation.  And, candidly, it seems that some attorneys want to “work a case” — i.e., pull fees from it, before working towards a reasonable settlement.

To work through the thicket of discovery and motions, it frequently falls to the trial judge to move a case along.  Chief Justice Roberts today, among other things, urged trial judges, to do just that.

For our clients, plaintiffs and defendants, that will serve the cause of justice.

 

As previously reported in this blog, this firm has been honored to be selected as counsel to a group of Registered Land property owners to save that land registration system in Hamilton County, Ohio.

In the fall of 2014, the Hamilton County Commission voted 2-1 to abolish the Torrens land registration system.  Hamilton County has enjoyed the highest rate of land registration in the State.  Our clients then filed suit to block the abolition, in part based upon significant procedural errors on the part of the Hamilton County Commission in that abolition action.

During the pendency of that lawsuit, we successfully sought and obtained an injunction against the abolition of the system, requiring the Hamilton County Recorder to continue both “regular” land recording and the Torrens indexing.

In late October Judge Charles Kubicki dismissed the lawsuit, and then our plaintiff clients sought a “stay” of that decision — and a continuation of the Torrens land registration system pending appeal — first from Judge Kubicki and then from the 1st District Court of Appeals.  Both of those motions were denied.

Thus, at present, the Hamilton County Recorder has ceased some aspects of Torrens Land Registration.  We will report more fully in an update which procedures remain.

However, our appeal remains pending, and we have filed a motion with the Court of Appeals to expedite the disposition of the appeal, as the difficulty in restoring the Registered Land System may be compounded as time passes and hundreds if not thousands of documents require corrective indexing.

We’ll keep our blog readers advised as the appeal progresses.

 

Listed below are legislative bills currently pending in the 131st Ohio General Assembly. If you would like to view full text of each individual legislation, please click on the links below.

S.B.85Property-Tax Complaints

Sponsored by Senator Bill Coley (R)

Introduced to the Senate on February 23, 2015, Senate Bill 85 addresses property tax complaints and is currently pending in the Ways and Means Committee. The Bill would amend sections 307.699, 3735.67, 5715.19, 5715.27, and 5717.01 of the Revised Code to only permit property tax complaints to be initiated by the property owner, the property owner’s spouse or representative, or the county recorder. Right now, the current law allows property owners, the property owner’s spouse or representative, the county recorder, a real estate broker, the board of county commissioners, the prosecuting attorney or treasurer of the county, the board of township trustees, the board of education, or the mayor to file a property tax complaint.

S.B.180Anti Discrimination-Employment

Sponsored by Senator Joe Uecker (R)

On June 10, 2015, Senate Bill 180 was introduced to the Senate and is now currently pending in the Senate Civil Justice Committee. Senate Bill 180 would make it an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer to fire an employee without just cause, refuse to hire a potential employee, or to discriminate against someone regarding matters related to employment just because that person exercised a constitutional right within a house or car not owned by their employer. The Bill would also allow a person to file a charge with the Civil Right Commission if they find that another person has engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice. The Civil Rights Commission would then investigate the unlawful discriminatory practice.

S.B.201Nuisance-Vacant Property

Sponsored by Senator Jim Hughes (R)

Under current law, a “nuisance” property is defined as a real property where prostitution, the illegal manufacturing or selling of alcohol, and/or the production of indecent films takes place. Senate Bill 201, introduced to the Senate on August 10, 2015, would expand the definition of “nuisance property” to include any real property where an offence of violence has occurred or is occurring. Real Property also includes vacant land. For purposes of this Bill, an offence of violence has many definitions, some of which are: robbery, kidnapping, murder, assault, child abuse, riots, burglary, domestic violence, arson, and human trafficking. S.B. 201 would also continue to allow the Attorney General to call an abatement proceeding on the nuisance property, which could eventually result in the property being deemed unavailable for use for one year. As of October 14, 2015, S.B. 201 is pending in the Civil Justice Committee.

H.B.134Foreclosure-Vacant Properties

Sponsored by Representative Cheryl Grossman (R) and Representative Michael Curtin (D)

House Bill 134, which addresses a number of issues regarding judicial foreclosure actions, is currently pending in the House Judiciary Committee. First, if a residential property appears to be vacant or abandoned, the Bill would allow the mortgage holder to bring a summary foreclosure action against the property. It would also modify the judicial sale procedure by requiring the sheriff to record the deed of a foreclosed property within a certain time period. If the deed is not recorded within a certain time period, the property will be transferred to the purchaser by the recording of the order of confirmation of sale. In regards to unoccupied property, the Bill would allow a municipal corporation to seek an order of remediation against the owner of the property. Lastly, if H.B.134 passes, it would place additional duties on the clerk of common pleas court pertaining to the notification and service of parties involved in a foreclosure action.

H.B.149Attorney’s Fees- Actual Damages

Sponsored by Representative Jonathan Dever (R) and Representative John Patterson (D)

Introduced to the House on April 13, 2015 and currently pending in the House Financial Institutions and HUD Committee, House Bill 149 relates to damages and attorney’s fees in housing discrimination cases. The Ohio Fair Housing Law currently prohibits discrimination when it comes to purchasing, selling, or renting a house. Under this Bill, if the Civil Right Commission finds that someone is engaging in unlawful housing discrimination, the Commission is permitted to require that person to pay actual damages and attorney’s fees. The current law requires the assessment of actual damages and attorney’s fees and permits the assessment of punitive damages in regards to housing discrimination claims.

H.B.226Condominium Liens

Sponsored by Representative John Rogers (D)

On May 21, 2015, House Bill 226 was introduced to the House and is now pending in the House Commerce and Labor Committee. H.B. 226 would provide that a lien filed by a condominium association against the owner’s interest in the unit has priority over other liens and encumbrances that were previously recorded, with the exception of political subdivision assessments and real estate tax liens. It would also provide that the condominium lien is a continuing lien and is subject to automatic adjustments for additional fees, costs, assessments and unpaid interest.

H.B.281Income Tax Deduction-Higher Education

Sponsored by Representative John M. Rogers (D)

Introduced to the House on July 7, 2015 and currently pending in the House Ways and Means Committee, House Bill 281 would allow recent college graduates to take a personal income tax deduction for specific out-of-pocket higher education expenses. Out-of-pocket higher education expenses would consist of: school supplies, books, tuition, fees, any type of equipment that the student would use in or for class, and room and board expenses.

H.B.330Equal Pay Certificate

Sponsored by Stephanie Howse (D) and Representative Kathleen Clyde (D)

House Bill 330 would amend multiple sections of the Revised Code regarding contractors and individuals submitting bids or proposals for state contracts and business entities applying for a grant. As introduce to the House on September 14, 2015, H.B. 330 would require contractors, individuals, and business entities to do the following: prohibit an employer from retaliating against an employee who discusses their wage rate or salary with another employee, eliminate sex-based wage discrepancies and obtain an equal pay certificate. This Bill is currently pending in the House State Government Committee.

 

School administrators have the unenviable responsibilities of both educating our youth and keeping them safe.  As school violence continues to make national headlines administrators are increasingly wary of “off-campus student speech” – think social media postings – made by their students.  How do we balance a school’s need to maintain discipline in the school-setting, with the student’s first amendment rights to free speech?  Do we as a society allow schools to take a more authoritarian approach to disciplining our youth given the spate of violence, or do student’s free speech rights trump the school’s ability to discipline students for conduct that occurs away from the school yard?

The United States Supreme Court established the standard for “on-campus” speech regulation in 1969 in Tinker v. Des Moines.  In that decision, the Supreme Court decided that students who wore black armbands to school in protest of the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War did not materially or substantially interfere with the operation of the schools or collide with the rights of others.  The Court issued the now oft-quoted refrain that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”  Yet, at the same time, the Court established that school administrators may restrict student speech that poses a risk of substantial disruption with the work or discipline of the school.

Following Tinker, the Supreme Court continued to refine First Amendment jurisprudence in the public school context, finding that: (1) schools can restrict vulgar and lewd speech (Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser); (2) schools can restrict student speech that appears to be sponsored by the school (Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier); (3) schools can restrict student speech promoting illegal drug use (Morse v. Frederick).

The Supreme Court could not have imagined the development of social media and its impact on the student speech when it decided in Tinker in 1969.  As social media continues to expand avenues of communication and expression for our youth, the federal district courts continue to tackle speech issues without further guidance from the Supreme Court.   I first became interested in this issue six years ago in law school while researching student speech issues for a law review article.  Ultimately I published an article that examined off-campus speech in the context of the second circuit’s decision in Doninger v. Niehoff.  In that article, I argued that the Supreme Court’s standard for on-campus speech regulation enunciated in Tinker is workable in the context of off-campus speech. S ix years later the Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on the issue.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed the issue in the Bell v. Itawamba County School Board.  In Bell, a high school student and aspiring rapper wrote and recorded a song at a studio unaffiliated with the school and posted the song on his Facebook page and on YouTube using his personal computer.  The song included criticism of and “threatening language against two high school teachers/coaches” who allegedly sexually harassed female students.  In response, the School board suspended Bell and transferred him to an alternative school.  Bell subsequently filed suit against the school arguing that this disciplinary action violated his First Amendment right to free speech.

The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the school, finding that the school officials acted reasonably.   On appeal, a panel for the appellate court reversed, finding in favor of Bell.  The school then petitioned for the case to be heard by the appellate court en banc, meaning that the entire bench (all of the judges of the court) would hear the case.  Its petition was granted and the appellate court reinstated summary judgment in favor of the school. In doing so, the Fifth Circuit held that the school did not violate Bell’s First Amendment rights.

The Court examined Bell’s case in the context of Tinker and its progeny.  After reviewing these cases, the Court rejected Bell’s arguments that Tinker does not apply to off-campus speech and that, even if it does, Bell’s conduct did not satisfy Tinker’s substantial disruption test.  Instead, the Court held that the school acted appropriately in disciplining Bell because “a school official reasonably could find Bell’s rap recording threatened, harassed, and intimated the two teachers…and a substantial disruption reasonably could have been forecast.”

The Court reasoned that “violence forecast by a student against a teacher does reach the level of the …exceptions necessitating divergence from Tinker’s general rule” and that, due to the advent of new technology such as the internet, smartphones, and digital social media, “off-campus threats, harassment, and intimidation directed at teachers create a tension between a student’s free-speech rights and a school official’s duty to maintain discipline and protect the school community.”  The appellate court found that the school’s interest in being able to act quickly and intervene before speech leads to violence outweighed Bell’s interest in free speech.  As a result, the Fifth Circuit determined that Tinker’s substantial disruption test applies when a student intentionally directs at the school community speech reasonably understood by school officials to threaten, harass, and intimate a teacher, even when the speech originated off campus.

The Fifth Circuit’s decision illuminates the struggle our federal courts have had in developing a consistent approach to these issues, evidenced by the four dissenting opinions it elicited.  One dissent criticized the majority’s recognition of the school’s right to discipline a student whistle-blower.  Another dissent explained that off-campus, online student speech is a poor fit for any of the First Amendment doctrines and expressed hope that the Supreme Court will soon give the lower courts guidance on how to resolve these cases. The third dissent essentially agreed with the panel majority’s opinion and felt that the en banc majority unnecessarily expanded Tinker to apply in this case.  Finally, the last dissent generally posited that Tinker did not apply to off-campus speech and that, instead, he would apply a modified Tinker standard to allow for the problems current technology poses.  Under even a modified standard, though, the dissenter opined that the school’s discipline of Bell would fail.

As we see in Bell, the courts continue to wrestle with whether and how to apply Tinker and its progeny to off-campus student speech. Ever-increasing technology poses additional questions that the courts will continue to struggle with until the Supreme Court weights in on the issue.

My guess is that Supreme Court will address the question sooner the later. Whether the Tinker substantial disruption test will be adopted for off-campus speech, or some hybrid test is created, remains to be seen. In my mind, although the Tinker Court never imagined the ease of communication in the smart phone era, its test remains a viable and important tool for school administrators to curtail speech when it poses a foreseeable risk of substantial disruption to the school environment.

 

 

The 6th Circuit en banc released an opinion today that allowed an an “extreme and ill-mannered evangelical group” to march on public streets through City streets in Dearbourn, Michigan “with banners, signs, and tee-shirts that displayed messages criticizing Islam and Mohammed.”  The demonstrations occurred during the annual Arab International Festival that attracts more than 300,000 persons over three days.

The group made themselves intentionally controversial, carrying around a severed pig’s head on a spike and and signs that said, “Islam is a Religion of Blood and Murder.” However, all their activities were on publicly-dedicated streets and sidewalks.

The County had argued that the speech of Bible Believers constituted “fighting words” and “incitement to violence” and thus could be banned.

The issue was whether Bible Believers had a right to engage in street preaching, and to parade around with their printed messages. The festival allowed groups to register for an assigned table, under the information tent, but not parade about the festival.  The Plaintiffs, Bible Believers, preferred to move around on the public streets and sidewalks where they could be seen.

The 6th Circuit decision says “fighting words” only means words directed at an individual who is present.  As to incitement, the decision says that Bible Believers did not ask anyone listening to do anything violent.

The case is Bible Believers v Wayne County, Michigan, 13-1635.

Even with proper estate planning, clients can take actions that unintentionally “undo” their estate planning desires.

Joint Accounts

It is not uncommon for an elderly client to set up a joint account with a child or other caretaker to facilitate such party’s handling of the client’s financial affairs.  In such situations, the joint account will transfer to the joint account holder without probate of the account.  Frequently, a client will not consider this aspect of setting up a joint account which may result in an imbalance in the division of a client’s estate.

Life Time Gifts

From time to time, a client will make monetary gifts to a child when the child is in need.  It is often the intention of the client (and the understanding of the family) that these gifts should be considered part of the child’s inheritance; however, without putting into place the appropriate paperwork, these gifts will not “legally” be considered in connection with the division of the client’s estate.

Loans

As with gifts, a client will make loans to a child when the child is in need, and it is the intention of the client (and the understanding of the family) that these loans will be paid back to the client.  Unless such loans are properly documented, it is difficult to determine the amount of the loans, and/or to enforce repayment of the same.  Even if the loans are documented between the client and the borrower, the documentation may be misplaced or destroyed prior to repayment.  Without repayment of the loan, it could result in the loan amount remaining with the borrower and the reduction of the estate of the funds that would have otherwise been received.

Updating Beneficiaries

Life insurance policies and retirement accounts will be distributed to the named beneficiaries.  If there is not a named beneficiary, then such amounts will most likely be payable to the client’s estate.  Clients do not revisit the beneficiary designations on a regular basis.  This can lead to the payment of these amounts to individuals designated years ago who the client no longer would want to receive such funds.  For example, a client may designate a brother or sister as a primary or secondary beneficiary of a life insurance policy with the idea that the brother or sister will see that the funds are used to take care of a client’s minor children.  However, the funds may not be paid until years later and the payee may not remember or appreciate the purpose for the payment.

Advancement Clauses

One way to address these types of issues is the inclusion of an advancement clause within a client’s estate planning documents.  An advancement clause creates the presumption that gifts given to a person’s heir during that person’s life are intended as an advance on what that heir would inherit upon the death of the client.  The concept of an advancement clause could be extended to assets received on the death of the client from a non-probate asset.

Sharing Information

Another way to help address these types of issues is by sharing information with the client’s beneficiaries and legal counsel.  If the client’s beneficiaries are aware of the intention of the client by creating joint accounts and/or making gifts, loans, and/or beneficiary designations, then the client’s wishes will be known to the affected parties, which could lead to the beneficiaries working together to see that the client’s wishes are honored.  A client’s sharing of information with his or her attorney can help the attorney advise the client on how to document and address such items within the client’s estate planning.

__________________

For help with planning the disposition of your estate according to your intentions, please contact Isaac T. Heintz at 513-943-6654.

One issue that often arises in medical malpractice cases is whether the doctor properly informed the patient about a surgical procedure and its attendant risks. Ohio law imposes a duty upon doctors to obtain “informed consent” from their patients prior to conducting a medical procedure. But, what exactly qualifies as informed consent? How must that consent be obtained? Does it matter if the surgery is “routine,” “experimental,” or somewhere in between? The Twelfth District Court of Appeals recently considered these questions in the case of Shell v. Durrani.

After 30 years of suffering from chronic back pain, the plaintiff in this case consulted Dr. Durrani who performed a surgery on her in 2007. A year later, the plaintiff again experienced back pain. Dr. Durrani informed her that the screws he had inserted in her spine had loosened and that a second surgery was required. The day before the surgery, the plaintiff signed two separate written consent forms. After the surgery, the plaintiff suffered complications that required two additional surgeries performed by Dr. Durrani. Following these surgeries, the plaintiff suffered from bowel and bladder control issues, nerve damage, pain in her legs and feet, and required a leg brace.

The plaintiff sued Dr. Durrani alleging that he failed to obtain her informed consent before the surgery. The jury ruled in favor of Dr. Durrani. The plaintiff appealed the decision, arguing that the she was entitled to a judgment notwithstanding the verdict because she was not provided with informed consent in accordance with Revised Code 2317.54. This statute provides that a medical consent form should set forth the general terms of the procedure along with what it is expected to accomplish, together with the reasonably known risks and the name of the doctor performing the surgery. It further calls for the consent form to include an acknowledgement that the disclosure of this information has been made to the patient, and should be signed by the patient.

The plaintiff essentially argued that one of the consent forms she executed violated the statute because it did not identify Dr. Durrani as the operating physician, nor did it describe the procedure to be performed. The appellate court was unpersuaded. First, the court noted that a physician is not required to provide a consent form that meets the requirements of R.C. 2317.54. Instead, when a written consent form is executed that meets the statutory requirements, it simply creates a presumption that valid and effective consent was obtained. Failure to comply with the statute does not in and of itself create a lack of informed consent claim. The facts of a case may even demonstrate that informed consent was obtained orally.

As to our questions raised at the beginning of this article, the appellate court stated that a lack of informed consent is established when three factors are met: (1) the physician fails to disclose to the patient and discuss the material risks and dangers inherently and potentially involved with respect to the proposed therapy, if any; (2) the unrevealed risks and dangers which should have been disclosed by the physician actually materialize and are the proximate cause of the injury to the patient; and (3) a reasonable person in the position of the patient would have decided against the therapy had the material risks and dangers inherent and incidental to treatment been disclosed to him or her prior to the therapy. These are the factors that must be analyzed whether the consent was allegedly obtained in writing, or orally.

In Shell, the court determined that the second consent form the patient signed did, in fact, comply with the requirements of R.C. 2317.54 for a presumptively valid informed consent. The court noted that Dr. Duranni had additionally discussed the procedures with the plaintiff orally. As a result, the appellate court upheld the trial court’s dismissal.

Informed consent is just one of the issues to consider for a client who has suffered complications from a medical procedure. Medical malpractice claims may turn on a variety of other facts in any particular case. We frequently meet with potential clients in this unfortunate situation, and understand that their health is an invaluable asset. We evaluate all aspects of their cases in order to protect their future. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you would like our litigation team to review a potential medical malpractice claim.

Katherine Fox

Finney Law Firm  is pleased to to announce the addition of Katherine Fox to our administrative staff.  Katherine previously worked for our team, when she departed to Chicago to get her Masters Degree and then worked for Miami University of Ohio for three and a half years.  We are thrilled that she has agreed to re-join the attorneys and paralegals at our firm to further improve the service we provide to clients.

Katherine earned her B.A. in Political Science and History from Bradley University in 2006 and her M. Ed. in Higher Education from Loyola University Chicago in 2010.

Empower U not only has assembled a top-notch lineup of free seminars to enrich its participants (see its remaining fall programs here), but it now has placed some of the courses online — with a sophisticated interface that allows the audio, a video of presenters and the PowerPoint presentation simultaneously to be displayed.

Thus, Tuesday night’s program featuring Finney Law Firm estate planning attorney Isaac Heintz and financial Planner Bill Lyon of the Lyon group is now available on line for your viewing pleasure and education.

You may view it here.

Thanks to Empower U, Bill Lyon, Isaac Heintz, the full house of participants and another 17 on-line virtual participants for making the event a resounding success!

If you have questions after viewing the presentation or need help in planning the disposition of your estate, please feel free to call Isaac Heintz at 513-943-6654 or reach him via email here.