Hi, How Can We Help You?

Blog

How the snail darter could undermine Obamacare

Author By Finney Law FirmPosted on

At the Volokh Conspiracy, Jonathan Adler draws a parallel between the activist litigation challenge to the Tellico Dam project, Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, insisting on a strict reading of the Endangered Species Act, and the activist litigation challenge to Obamacare, King v. Burwell, insisting on a strict reading of the ACA’s provision for state exchanges.

Adler points to the TVA decision to suggest that Court will apply a strict reading to Obamacare and undo the federal exchange that has taken the place of state exchanges in states that have not created their own. Read Adler’s analysis here.

In landmark decision that could clip the wings of regulators, SCOTUS holds that licensing boards may be subject to antitrust suits

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

In a decision that could have far-reaching implications against over-reach by state licensing Boards, today the United States Supreme Court ruled that under certain circumstances their actions could constitute violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

The issue in the case of North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 13-534, addressed the attempt by the Appellant to punish the provision of teeth whitening services by non-dentists.  

SCOTUS ruled that the facts that (i) the eight-member licensing board consisted of six dentists who were selected by the state’s licensed dentists and (ii) the panel operated largely outside of supervision by the State weighed in favor of denying the panel members the same immunity granted to the State under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

Given that licensing panels exist, at least in part, for the purpose of limiting competition in the provision of services offered by various professions, to the extent that they have the forgoing characteristic, both public and private Sherman Anti-Trust actions may lie.

Read about the decision here in the New York Times.

Read the decision here.

Is a fish a “tangible object” for purposes of the Sarbanes Oxley Act?

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

When the drafters of the Sarbanes Oxley Act made it a crime punishable for up to 20 years in prison to destroy “any record, document or tangible object” in order to obstruct an investigation, did they intend to address the throwing overboard of fish?  

That was the issue of sufficient importance to be decided today by the Supreme Court in Yates v. United States.

(The fish in question were evidence of a crime of catching a fish too short.)

In that action the Defendant/Appellant argued that the statutory prohibition is  “a documents offense” and that its reference to “tangible object[s]” means “computer hard drives, logbooks, [and] things of that nature,” not fish.

In other words, the question was whether the Court could apply a common sense interpretation of the statute rather than a broad dictionary definition of “tangible objects,” because fish certain are “tangible objects” by that term’s ordinary meaning.

In a 5-4 majority a common sense reading of the statute prevailed, and the criminal charges were thrown out.  Fish, it seems, are not “tangible objects.” 

Read the whole article here in the New York Times.

Read the decision here.

Please join us Tuesday and Thursday nights for free property tax valuation classes

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

Thisx week, Christopher Finney will present “Reducing your property taxes” in two forums:

1) The consistently ground-breaking Empower-U lecture series will host Christopher Finney at Connections Christian Church, 7421 East Galbraith Road, on Tuesday, February 24, from 7 to 8:30 PM.  You can register and read about all of their course offerings for the Spring here.

2) Cincinnati Realtor Ellie Kowalchik and Summit Funding’s Aaron Denton team up for an informative evening on Thursday, February 26, from 6:30 to 8 PM at the Oasis Conference Center, Loveland, Ohio.  You may RSVP by emailing Ellie at [email protected] by February 18th.

All are invited to each of these courses.  We look forward to seeing you there!

Finney Law Firm wins at the U.S. Supreme Court

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

We will write much more on this decision later, but today Finney Law Firm client prevailed 9-0 at the United States Supreme Court in a decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas.

The full slip opinion is here.

Today, we launch the on-line presence of Ivy Pointe Title, LLC

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

Ten days ago experienced real estate attorney Rick Turner and his capable staff of Patti Gillespie and Evan Meredith joined our operations by launching Ivy Pointe Title, LLC, performing residential and commercial title and closing services.

Today, we are proud to announce their arrival with their new web site,  www.IvyPointeTitle.Com, and Facebook, Linkedin and Twitter accounts.

Further, we have implemented on-line ordering and will be serving our clients with a sophisticated client portal.  These are our first important commitments to evolving technology in the title industry.

 

County Auditor Dusty Rhodes joins Chris Finney for Tax Valuation class

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on
Chris and Dusty 2
Chris Finney and County Auditor Dusty Rhodes

Each year for the past six years, we have been pleased to co-teach with County Auditor Dusty Rhodes a continuing education class to the Cincinnati Area Board of Realtors entitled “How to Reduce Your Property Taxes.”

The 3-hour class is designed to teach Realtors in detail how their Ohio tax bill is calculated and presented, and the process for challenging the Auditor’s valuation before Ohio’s 88 Boards of Revison.

This year the class, at the Board offices, was held on Wednesday, January 21.

False political speech case ascends to high court

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

After the free speech decision in United States v. Alvarez  and the clear perspective of the high court on the standing issue in the Susan B. Anthony List case, it is clear that it is just a matter of time until the U.S. Supreme Court accepts a case on and strikes down a state statute outlawing false political speech.

It is, of course, our hope that that case ends up being the Susan B. Anthony List, a second time.  But, today the United States Supreme Court considered in conference a form of the question in Clayton v. Niska.  There, the issue presented is:

Whether a state statute banning false political speech is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest when such ban covers both implicit and indirect claims of political support.

A decision on whether to accept cert. on that case is expected to be announced next week.

 

’tis the season — for property tax valuation challenges!

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

Finney Law Firm’s attorneys  are experienced practitioners before the Boards of Revision throughout Ohio and the property valuation administrators of Kentucky to challenge the valuation of real property — thus resulting in a reduction of real estate taxes.

March 31 is the statutory deadline each year in Ohio to file a challenge to the valuation of real property.  If you miss that deadline, you must wait until the next tax year, and tax refunds for over-valued property only cover the current tax year.  Thus, a missed deadline is a missed potential refund of taxes.

If you desire for Finney Law Firm to analyze the valuation of your real property for a possible reduction, please contact Christopher P. Finney at 513-943-6655 for a free preliminary assessment.

Condominium versus Landominium — what’s the difference under Ohio law?

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

The most popular question this week at our seminar on Ohio Condominium law was:

What’s the difference between a condominium and a landominium under Ohio law?

Well, we hate to give such a lawyerly answer, but the question requires it.

We are taught to think of rights in real estate as a bundle of straws with an infinite number of straws in it.  One straw might be the right to possession for a year, another straw might be the mineral rights under the property, another straw might be the right to occupy in common certain areas of the property, such as a shared easement.  The owner of property has the right to parcel out these rights contractually as he sees fit.

Ohio law does not define a landominium, and a developer signing a declaration “dividing up” these property rights can thus largely on his own determine the contractual rights and obligations under the landominium documents, such as what are common areas, what areas the association maintains, voting rights of owners, etc.  Acccordingly, a landominium is largely whatever a developer says it is.  And it will be different project -to-project.

In some degree of contrast, Ohio law does define a condominium.  And a declaration dividing up those property rights in a condominium has some minimum contents under the Ohio condominium statute.  For example, all condominium property is divided between “unit” and “common areas,” and “common areas” are divided between “general common areas” and “limited common areas,” i.e., limited in use to fewer than all unit owners.

But, again, the creation of a condominium is largely a creature of contract, not statute.  So, within the minimum constraints of the condominium statute, the developer largely decides what the declaration will contain and how to allocate the rights among the unit owners.

So, in short, to be a “condominium” under Ohio law the declaration must contain the minimum requirements of the statute, and a “landominium” is whatever the developer says it is.

1 … 72 73 74 75 76 … 89