Hi, How Can We Help You?

Blog

Meet Our 2022 Summer Law Clerks

Author By Finney Law FirmPosted on

The Finney Law Firm is excited to introduce its 2022 Summer Law Clerks! Each year, we hire incoming 2L or 3L law students to work in our various practice areas, including General Litigation, Labor and Employment, Constitutional/Public Interest, and Real Estate & Commercial Transactional (to name a few).

The Summer Law Clerk Program allows us to get to know the next generation of attorneys and serves as a mutually beneficial opportunity for them to help work on some of our pending cases and, more importantly, learn in a fast-paced, practical legal environment. This Program is something we very much enjoy and strive to make both fun and enriching for our clerks. Our law clerks draft motions and pleadings, observe depositions, assist with due diligence and document review, meet with clients, research some of the many unique legal issues with which we are often presented, and have even helped with multi-day and multi-week trials!

Ashley Duckworth

Ashley Duckworth

Ashley is an incoming 2L at NKU Chase College of Law and is clerking primarily with our General Litigation and Constitutional/Public Interest groups from our Eastgate location, though she also helps with Transactional projects. Ashley grew up in Morganfield (Union County), Kentucky and earned her undergraduate degree in Communication from Western Kentucky University. Outside of work and school, Ashley is an avid reader and enjoys spending time with her friends and family and her new pup, Zoey! While she still has plenty of time to narrow her legal interests, Ashley is enjoying getting to work with several of our practice groups. Fun fact: Ashley was the overall high scorer during our duckpin bowling outing with the young associates and law clerks earlier this month!

Caitlin Lancaster

Caitlin Lancaster

Caitlin is an incoming 3L at University of Cincinnati College of Law and is clerking with our General Litigation group at our Mt. Adams location. She earned her undergraduate degree in Sports Management and Business Administration from the University of Cincinnati. Caitlin is currently a UC Law Admissions Ambassador, just completed her tenure as Social Chair of the Student Bar Association, is a member of the Moot Court Honor Board, and was recently elected to the Executive Board as the External Competitions Director. Caitlin plans to become a litigator after graduation and is enjoying the opportunity to work on a wide range of litigation matters at FLF. Outside of work and school, Caitlin can be found running away her stresses at Orangetheory, out on the town with her friends, or rooting on the Bengals and Sooners (she is also a fantasy football pro). We love that competitive spirit!

Austin Wishart

Austin Wishart

Austin is an incoming 3L at University of Cincinnati College of Law and is clerking with our Labor and Employment Group in both our Eastgate and Mt. Adams office locations. He is from Hamilton, Ohio, and currently lives in Loveland with his fiancé and their cat, Mauricio. Austin earned his undergraduate degree in Philosophy from the University of Dayton (Go Flyers!) and his Master’s in Bioethics from New York University.  He enjoys writing for the University of Cincinnati Law Review and spending time with friends on campus. Austin hopes to enter the practice of labor and employment law after graduation in 2023. Outside of the law, Austin enjoys trawling local record stores for vinyl, cooking new recipes, and supporting local breweries.

Attorney Casey Jones leads our Summer Law Clerk Program. For additional information about the Program or how to apply, feel free to reach out to Casey at [email protected] or to Katherine Fox at [email protected].

The Intersection Between “Omitted” Property Taxes and TOD Affidavits

Author By Casey A. JonesPosted on

Pursuant to R.C. 5713.20(A), “[i]f the county auditor discovers that any building, structure, or tract of land or any lot or part of either, has been omitted from the list of real property, the auditor shall add it to the list[.]” This “omitted property” includes property that was incorrectly, though in earnest, subjected to an exemption. However, it does not stop there.

The auditor is also required to compute and assess the taxes for preceding years during which the property was incorrectly omitted or exempted, up to five years, unless the property was transferred in the meantime. For purposes of this provision, “in the meantime” means before the omitted tax is actually assessed. If the property was transferred, the assessment can only relate to the time period after the transfer – i.e., the new owner will not be responsible for omitted taxes that would have accrued prior to its ownership. This should encourage a new or prospective owner to evaluate whether and how the property is taxed, make sure any exemptions, indeed, apply or that such use will continue, and otherwise prepare themselves for the likelihood of an increased tax.

As for property taxes accrued prior to a transfer of ownership, these are typically prorated at the closing (as for arm’s length transactions for value). But what happens if there is no closing?

Consider the following scenario:

Father owns property that has, for years, been subject to a property tax exemption. Father is ill and wants to avoid probate upon his death, so he executes a Transfer on Death (“TOD”) Affidavit, which will allow the property to transfer to Daughter without the need to open an estate. Upon Father’s Death, the property transfers to Daughter. However, unbeknownst to Daughter (and, perhaps, even unbeknownst to Father), an “omitted tax” was assessed two weeks before Father’s death and, thus, prior to the point in time that the property actually transferred to her.

The omitted tax was assessed because the auditor found that the property was improperly exempted or the exemption no longer applied for tax years preceding Father’s death. Because the omitted tax was assessed prior to the actual transfer of the property (remember, it did not transfer until the time of Father’s death), the “unless in the meantime the property has changed ownership” exception to R.C. 5713.20 does not apply. However, property tax assessments “run with the property,” meaning that Daughter is now responsible for, essentially, paying back up to five years’ worth of tax savings that Father realized as the result of the improper exemption (through no fault of his own), even though Daughter had no vested interest in the property during the period for which the exemption was in effect. If Daughter does not pay the omitted tax, she risks tax liens and/or foreclosure of the property. These omitted taxes can pretty quickly add up to tens of thousands of dollars, even before non-payment penalties.

In the case of an omitted tax, timing is of the utmost importance – e.g., when the omitted tax was assessed relative to when the property changed ownership. This may seem like a one-off case or unlikely occurrence. However, TOD affidavits are becoming an increasingly popular method of avoiding probate and, often, the TOD beneficiaries take little interest in the property until such time as it is to transfer to them. The lesson: be vigilant. The county auditors’ websites publish information relating to tax assessments and payments. The knowledge of whether a property in which you may, at some future time, have an interest is literally a few mouse clicks away. And if you need help, we have attorneys who are familiar with these issues relative to each of the tax, real estate, and probate implications who can assist you.

Ohio Contract Law: Voiding contracts on the basis of fraud

Author By Casey A. JonesPosted on

Properly drafted written contracts are typically enforceable as against the parties thereto, with few exceptions – fraud being one of them. The manner in which written contracts are treated upon the allegation of fraud is highly dependent on the type of fraud alleged. In short, it is a question of whether the party claiming fraud alleges that they were defrauded as to the terms or nature of the contract or as to the facts and representations underlying the contract.

Void and Voidability

One of the most common scenarios in which this question arises is relative to settlement agreements and/or “releases,” where one party gives some consideration (e.g., money) in exchange for the settlement and release of actual or potential legal claims. The type of fraud being alleged determines whether the contract or agreement is automatically void (void ab initio) or merely voidable. “A release obtained by fraud in the factum is void ab initio, while a release obtained by fraud in the inducement is merely voidable upon proof of fraud.” Haller v. Borror Corp., 50 Ohio St. 3d 10, 13 (1990). “Whether a release was procured through fraud of either type is a question for the trier of fact [such as a jury]. Whether the fraud as alleged is in the factum or in the inducement is an issue of law for the court.” Id., at 14-15.

Fraud in the Factum

“A release is obtained by fraud in the factum where an intentional act or misrepresentation of one party precludes a meeting of the minds concerning the nature or character of the purported agreement.” Id. Imagine a grandchild telling her grandmother that she is signing a letter for school when it is really a change to her estate plan. “Where device, trick, or want of capacity produces ‘no knowledge on the part of the releasor of the nature of the instrument, or no intention on his part to sign a release or such a release as the one executed,’ there has been no meeting of the minds.” Id., quoting Picklesimer v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 151 Ohio St. 1, 5 (1949).

Fraud in the Inducement

As the title would suggest, “[c]ases of fraud in the inducement. . . are those in which the plaintiff, while admitting that he released his claim for damages and received a consideration therefor, asserts that he was induced to do so by the defendant’s fraud or misrepresentation.” Haller, at 14. In Haller, the alleged fraud involved the financial solvency of a defendant company. In essence, a representative of the company allegedly represented to the plaintiffs that the company would soon be closed and, therefore, if Plaintiffs did not accept the offered settlement, they would likely receive nothing with respect to their claim(s). Id., at 11-12. The plaintiffs apparently later learned that this was not true. The Ohio Supreme Court found these allegations consistent with a claim of fraud in the inducement.

Practical Considerations

“A release of liability procured through fraud in the inducement is voidable only, and can be contested only after a return or tender of consideration.” Haller v. Borror Corp., 50 Ohio St. 3d 10, 14 (1990); see also Berry v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone, L.L.P., 127 Ohio St. 3d 480, 483 (2010) (“[A]n action for fraud in the inducement of a settlement of a tort claim is prohibited unless the plaintiff tenders back the consideration received and rescinds the release.”); Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Burke, 69 Ohio St. 294 (1903).

While it may seem obvious, one cannot seek to void a contract while retaining the consideration they received for the same. In Haller, the plaintiffs received $50,000 in exchange for a release of their prior claims. The Court, finding their allegations of fraud to be consistent with fraud in the inducement, held that the plaintiffs were required to tender back the $50,000 to the defendants before they could seek to void the settlement agreement and release. Because they had not done so, the release they signed remained valid and enforceable, and their claims (including those released under the settlement agreement and that of fraud in the inducement) were dismissed. This is consistent with the idea that one cannot “cherry-pick” which parts of a contract to enforce; they cannot denounce their obligations under a contract while retaining the benefits thereof.

When it comes to contract negotiations, these cases demonstrate how important it is to (a) start from a properly drafted contract, and (b) do your due diligence in order to mitigate the risk of later disputes and litigation. Our transactional team is uniquely positioned to help in these negotiations, having significant experience in contract drafting, negotiation, and disputes.

For assistance with contractual matters, contact Casey Jones (513.943.5673 )

Judge Wende Cross certifies classes in Cincinnati “Alarms Tax” case

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Wende Cross has certified two classes in White v. Cincinnati, litigation in which both the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law and Finney Law Firm represented payors of the illegal and unconstitutional Cincinnati tax on security alarm systems.  The two distinct classes certified are (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 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.

We now proceed to an an Order that will establish the amount and procedures for the restitution of the illegally-collected sums, a fairness hearing, and then distribution of the refunds to payors.  We aim for the conclusion of those steps this calendar year.  The amount of restitution is expected to be more than $3.6 million.

For questions, contact Chris Finney at 513.943.6655.

You may read the order issued April 22 here.

 

 

Governor DeWine signs into law legislation that significantly clips wings of School Districts in tax valuation litigation

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

Until now, School Districts in Ohio were fully empowered to participate in legal proceedings to oppose the lowering of Auditor’s property tax valuations and to seek increases in property tax valuations.  No more.

As we explain here, the Ohio House and Senate in the past few weeks passed legislation that upends the current equilibrium among County Auditors, property owners and school boards, to tilt matters decidedly in favor of property owners. (In fairness, Ohio had granted school boards a far greater role in the process than most other states.)

Today, Governor DeWine signed that bill, Am. Sub. H.B. 126, into law.  Read the summary of the legislation here.  The Cleveland Plain Dealer covers today’s events here.

For assistance with property tax valuation matters, please contact Chris Finney (513.943.6655) or Casey Jones (513.943.5673).

Tea Party groups move to unseal Lois Lerner and Holly Paz depositions

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

As we previously wrote about, here, Finney Law Firm was honored to serve as co-counsel to Tea Party groups throughout the nation in what we believe was the only certified class action ever against the Internal Revenue Service for its targeted discrimination against the plaintiffs resulting in protracted delays in processing and granting tax exemption status due to their political viewpoints. The targeting was led by Obama administration IRS official Lois Lerner and her chief deputy at the IRS, Holly Paz.

After years of pitched legal battles, that litigation ended with a dramatic settlement in which the IRS paid damages to Tea Party groups, the IRS paid the Tea Parties’ attorneys fees, and then-US Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a personal apology on behalf of the United States of America that included this unequivocal statement about the IRS intentional wrongdoing: “this abuse of power will not be tolerated.”

In that litigation, plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining the depositions of Lerner and Paz, but the transcripts of the depositions — finally revealing their own testimony about the origins and implementation of the outrageous policies and practices — have remain sealed under a temporary emergency Order by Judge Michael Barrett. (Even US House and Senate Committees investigating the wrongdoing were stymied in getting that testimony when Lerner and Paz each invoked their 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.)  That Order bottling up the deposition transcripts was never made final, and thus it could not be appealed.  Thus, to this day — more than three years later — the deposition transcripts remain hidden from public scrutiny.

As a result, this week, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Motion for Writ of Mandamus before the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to have the depositions unsealed.  You may read the Motion here.

Ohio legislature sends major changes in Boards of Education/Boards of Revision process to Governor DeWine for signature

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

A bill passed this week by the Ohio legislature could make major changes in the current process for Ohio tax valuation challenges before Ohio Boards of Revision as it relates to participation by Boards of Education if Governor DeWine signs it into law.

Unlike the procedures in many other states, in Ohio, Boards of Education (the major recipients of property tax monies) may both initiate complaints to increase the valuation of real property (and thus increase property taxes owed) and may oppose a property owner’s legal attempts to secure a reduction in tax values as well.

Some major features of the legislation, Am. Sub. H.B. 126, follow:

  1. School districts may not initiate a complaint to increase valuation unless the challenge meets all of three requirements (a) the challenge is based upon an actual arm’s length sale of the subject property before the tax lien date in question (this would then, it seems, also rule out challenges at all of “entity transfer” sales and sales after the tax lien date in question), (b) the sale is at least 10% above the then-established Auditor’s valuation and (c) such sale price exceeds the Auditor’s valuation by at least $500,000 (that amount is then annually subject to a CPI adjustment).
  2. Boards of Education would have to carefully undertake extensive and detailed procedures to specifically authorize by resolution such challenges, on a property-by-property basis, with at least seven days’ advance certified mail notice to each affected property owner.  The level of detail of these procedures appears to be nothing more than a series of procedural traps for Boards of Education to discourage their involvement in the tax valuation process.
  3. The involvement of Boards of Education stop at the Board of Revision.  While property owners or the Auditor may pursue an appeal of a Board of Revision decision, Boards of Education will have no authority to appeal (or participate in a property owner appeal) of a Board of Revision decision.
  4. Presently, property owners may enter into private settlements with school districts to avoid or end their opposition to a valuation reduction or its attempts to seek valuation increases. H.B. 126 will outlaw the practice of entering into these “side deals.”

More minor changes include:

  1. Boards of Education may file counterclaims to property owner complaints to reduce valuations only if the initial Complaint seeks a reduction of at least $17,500 (Boards of Education rarely if ever file counterclaims below this level at present).
  2. Boards of Revision lose jurisdiction to increase valuations of claims by Boards of Education are not acted upon within one year of the date of the filing of the Complaint (in our experience, this delay only happens in a few large urban counties in the year following a triennial revaluation, so this type of prolonged delay is quite uncommon).

There is no language in the bill about its effective date, upon our initial review, and thus it would seem its effective date would be 91 days after it becomes law (under the Ohio Constitution).  Thus, some of these provisions (pursuit of appeals, for example) could have an impact on valuation complaints and school board counterclaims filed in calendar year 2022.

We will promptly update this blog when Governor DeWine either vetoes or signs the legislation into law. He has 10 days to act, or the bill automatically becomes law.

Read more about the legislation here:

Read the actual legislation here. Contact Chris Finney (513.943.6655) if you have questions about the legislation or desire to pursue or defend against an Ohio or Kentucky property tax valuation challenge.

 

Chris Finney talks to 700 WLW’s Bill Cunningham about unanimous jury verdict against the Ohio Civil Rights Commission Commission (outrageous)

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

Listen in as Chris Finney discusses his 8-0 unanimous victory against the Ohio Civil Rights Commission as they attempted to extract money for a tenant in an entirely frivolous case.  The conduct of the Ohio Attorney General’s office and the Ohio Civil Rights Commission was shameful and outrageous in this case.

 

Team Finney notches big unanimous victory in jury trial versus Ohio Civil Rights Commission

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

Truth can be stranger than fiction.  And the last few weeks at the Finney Law Firm that has been the case.

Yesterday, Chris Finney, Jessica Gibson and Julie Gugino racked up a unanimous jury verdict (8-0) to defeat a case of claimed retaliation in response to a tenant’s claimed request for a disability accommodation that was met with a non-renewal of a residential lease.  The case was styled Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. Abundant Life Faith Fellowship in front of Judge Christian Jenkins in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court.  The Civil Rights Commission was also suing the Church’s pastor who had served for 41 years.  In candor, the Civil Rights Commission did a terrible job of vetting its own case with a terrible, dishonest plaintiff and a very sympathetic defendant.  Its attorneys at trial also were not exactly prepared or stellar.

The Civil Rights Commission case was full of demonstrable untruths about a kind-hearted 74-year-old African American minister who had suffered two strokes.  By the testimony of two of her fellow tenants in the building, the complaining tenant had plotted starting fewer than two weeks into her tenancy to drum up a fictitious lawsuit against the landlord as a way to extract money from him — she told this to her fellow tenants.  And for a year, she made his life a living hell, with incessant complaints about inadequate heat and fabrication about needing more light for a vision disability (in fact, her complaints about lighting had been adequately addressed early in her tenancy).  Dozens of complaints were addressed by visits by with servicemen, engineers, and repairmen to cater to her many whims and incessant gripes.  The Cincinnati Health Department came out and confirmed the unit in every room was heated to a comfortable 72°F to 73°F (the tenant lied to the jury — never a good idea — and said the readings were 62°F, 64°F and 66°F).

In the funniest part of the trial, the tenant at first denied and then admitted sending a bizarre text message to the landlord in the depth of winter, after he noticed that the windows of every unit in the building were open, including those of the tenant who constantly complained it was too cold!  Here is the text message, grammatical errors and misspellings included:

Yes, her crazy assertion to the landlord was that he must maintain the heat in the unit at 70°F even if the windows of the unit are left open!

Of course Pastor Brown and the Church had to fund the 4-year defense of the Civil Rights Administrative Complaint and the lawsuit, which he did with aplomb, but at great expense.  For the benefit of all landlords subject to outrageous prosecutions from obstinate public agencies, he saw this case through to its appropriate and proper end.  He refused to be bullied by the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, the office of the Ohio Attorney General and Housing Opportunities Made Equal (H.O.M.E.) (which manufactured evidence and knowingly lied to the Civil Rights Commissions in “building their case”).

For more information or to avoid being bullied by these same agencies: (a) DO NOT TALK TO THEM in an investigation EVER and (b) contact Jessica Gibson  (513.943.5677) for assistance with your case.

Another public interest class action win — Cincinnati Alarm Tax

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

As we wrote here, in November the Ohio First District Court of Appeals in White v. Cincinnati unanimously ruled in favor of clients of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law and Finney Law Firm in a challenge to the City of Cincinnati’s alarm tax scheme. The City of Cincinnati asked the Ohio Supreme Court to review that decision, a discretionary call by Court.  Historically, Ohio’s top Court accepts only about 5% of such cases for consideration.

Today, the Ohio Supreme Court declined to accept for review the First District decision.  Since that was the last stop on the railroad for the City, the inevitable next legal steps are injunction against further collection of the tax, class certification and an order of restitution before Common Pleas Court Judge Wende Cross.

Amazingly, even after the First District ruled that the tax was illegal, through today the City of Cincinnati insisted on continued collection of the tax. So, an injunction by the trial court now will be necessary.

If you are a Cincinnati alarm fee payor, you should be expecting a refund once the amount has been calculated and the procedural hurdles cleared, perhaps later this year.  If the City continues to attempt to extract alarm charges from you, respectfully decline and send them this blog entry!

1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 90