This article from our friends at Kegler, Brown, Hill + Ritter addresses the record low pass rate for Ohio’s Bar exam. Is it a policy to make it tougher to be admitted in Ohio or a less-prepared crop of students? The fact that the trend from 2009 to 2013 was consistent would militate against the former and in favor of the latter. It may also be an outlier.
In any event, we need attorneys well prepared for the rigors of the profession.
The Finney Law Firm was retained to represent Councilmember Christopher Smitherman in the matter of an ethics complaint that was filed against him by a Cincinnati attorney arising from the Mahogany’s loan default. This week, that ethics complaint was dismissed as being entirely without merit.
The background to the matter is that in early 2012 the City made significant loans and grants to Mahogany’s Restaurant in order to bring an African-American-owned and -themed restaurant to the Banks. Smitherman realized from the initiation of the project that the operator (Liz Rogers) was not qualified for an extension of City credit. Unbeknownst to Smitherman, before his vote on Council, Rogers had approached his brother (Albert Smitherman) for some advice about how to complete the construction project, which Albert provided without charge.
After Rogers’ default on the loans, her attorney pointed the finger at Smitherman, claiming (falsely) that Smitherman’s votes and public pronouncements against the project were because Rogers has been approached by and later spurned Albert Smitherman’s company. The allegations were completely and demonstrably false.
This year, after Rogers’ loan default, Rogers’ attorney filed a Complaint with the Ohio Ethics Commission containing the false allegations, presumably to achieve some benefit in getting City Council to forgive her loans.
The Ohio Ethics Commission has a multi-step process to consider Complaints brought before it: staff review, initial Commission review, investigation and final disposition. The Smitherman Complaint was so completely lacking in merit, it was dismissed at the very first stage — staff review.
The Finney Law Firm was proud to represent both Christopher Smitherman in the ethics matter, and Albert Smitherman in the allegations made against his company.
For decades, campaigns in Ohio have battled over the supposed truth or falsity in campaign advertisements before a 7-member panel of political appointees of the Governor, the Ohio Elections Commission.
Because of important wins of the Finney Law Firm and other able counsel, the jurisdiction of the Elections Commission to weigh in on such disputes has been substantially narrowed in recent months, moving that debate to where it should be — in articles in the media, in conversations at the neighborhood bar, and between campaigns to duke it out in their earned and paid communications .
However, finally the jackboot of the Elections Commission has been lifted from our throats.
Read here a story in this vein from the Columbus Dispatch. This is as it should be.
The second in a series of cases arising from the twin wins of the Finney Law Firm at the United States Supreme Court came back before Judge Michael Barrett two weeks ago on cross motions for summary judgment (the Supreme Court proceeding having resolved only the standing issue).
This second case, COAST v. Ohio Elections Commission, addressed whether the Ohio Elections Commission — a politically appointed body — can sit in judgment of statements made during the course of a ballot issue campaign.
Yesterday, Judge Barrett decided they cannot — at least preliminarily, finding that the Plaintiffs have a high likelihood of success on the merits of the case. Judge Barrett’s short decision on Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction, is here. Judge Barrett has promised a longer decision on the motion for permanent injunction at a later date.
This decision follows closely on the heels of the decision by Judge Timothy Black in Susan B. Anthony List v. Ohio Elections Commission striking down a companion statute in Ohio allowing judgment and punishment by the Ohio Elections Commission of statements made during campaigns for candidates for public office. His decision permanently enjoining that statute is here. The Ohio Elections Commission has appealed that decision to the 6th Circuit, and it is possible that one or both of these cases will end up before the U.S. Supreme Court again.
We will keep you informed of developments in these two cases as they occur.
Most lease agreements require the tenant to pay rent on the first of the month to secure her right to occupy the property for the remainder of that month. This is referred to as a future rent payment. Nonpayment of rent is the most common cause for a landlord’s decision to file an eviction proceeding. By the time a landlord decides to pursue an eviction, it is quite often the case that the tenant is three or more months behind on payments. During the course of the litigation, the tenant typically falls further behind on payments. The tenant then owes past due rent, for liability already incurred, in addition to the normal future rent payments. Sometimes the tenant offers to bring his past due delinquency current, and resume making future rent payments to the landlord. The question that then confronts landlords is whether they may accept payments from the tenant and lawfully continue forward with the eviction proceeding at the same time.
Recently, in Urban Partnership Bank v. Mosezit Academy, Inc., the Eighth District Court of Appeals of Ohio highlighted the important distinction between a landlord’s acceptance of past due rent and future rent payments during an eviction proceeding. In this case, there was no dispute that the tenant breached the lease by failing to make the monthly payments. The trial court terminated the lease and ordered the tenant to vacate the property.
The tenant appealed the trial court’s decision, and argued that the landlord waived its right to eviction by accepting rental payments during the eviction process. On review, the Eighth District Court of Appeals noted that an eviction cannot proceed if the landlord has waived the notice to vacate. It further stated that it is a generally accepted rule in Ohio that a notice to vacate is deemed waived as a matter of law if the landlord accepts future rent payments after serving a notice to vacate. In contrast, if the landlord accepts payment for past due rent, the landlord does not waive the notice to vacate. In this case, there was no evidence that the tenant’s payments to the landlord during the eviction proceeding were for future rent. Accordingly, the appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision that the landlord did not waive its right to eviction by accepting the past due rental payments during the case.
This case should remind landlords that if they accepts future rent payments while pursuing an eviction, the notice to vacate will be deemed waived and the eviction should be dismissed. On the other hand, landlords are permitted to collect past due rent during an eviction case. Landlords must be prepared to argue this point to the judge in the event that the tenant moves for a dismissal of the eviction based on the payment of past due rent.
The Finney Law Firm has extensive experience in both residential and commercial leasing disputes. Please contact our office if you have any questions about current or prospective leasing arrangements.
The District Court has ruled in in favor of the Plaintiff in Johnson Welded Products v. Sebelius, which sought to expand the SCOTUS decision in the Hobby Lobby case to all contraceptives.
There were four major cases originally filed relative to the harassment and delays sustained by Tea Party and liberty-oriented groups in seeking 501(c)(3)and 501(c)(4) status. Three were filed in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, and one was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. It is this last case in which the Finney Law Firm is co-counsel.
Today, Federal District Court Judge Reggie Walton dealt a blow to the Plaintiffs in two of those cases after the IRS finally granted tax exempt status to the remaining Plaintiffs, ruling the matter moot, and thus dismissing both Complaints. Those decisions are here (True the Vote, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service) and here (Linchpins of Liberty v. United States).
In the third case, Z Street v. John Koskinen (the Plaintiff is a pro-Israel group harassed by the IRS in a manner similar to the IRS harassment of Tea Party groups), the District Court did allow the claims in that case to survive a Motion to Dismiss, but discovery has been stayed pending the outcome of an interlocutory appeal of that decision, which could take another 18 months or more.
However, our firm’s case, NorCal Tea Party Patriots v. Internal Revenue Service, in front of Federal District Court Judge Susan Dlott, has survived a withering Motion to Dismiss from the IRS’s phalanx of attorneys and shortly will be proceeding with discovery.
Thus, while we fervently hope the three cases noted above survive their appeals and proceed to discovery and judgment, at present the Cincinnati case is the sole surviving litigation to get to the bottom of the conspiracy to deprive liberty-minded citizens of fair treatment by the IRS, to achieve justice for these targeted groups, and to enjoin the IRS from ever again singling out individuals and groups for discriminatory treatment based solely on their viewpoints.
We are proud to be a part of this landmark litigation and excited for the next steps.
As our readers are aware, the Finney law Firm, LLC has ben retained to represent the Ohio Republican Party in its claims against Ed FitzGerald and Cuyahoga County for public records sought by ORP relating to FitzGerald’s use of his key card to access the County administrative buildings. Indeed, the original request for the information came from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, and FitzGerald refused their requests for the information as well. A few updates on this case:
So, as you might expect, the litigation appears to be mired in procedural motions for now. We anticipate the Supreme Court will clarify many of these issues in short order.
This week marks a major milestone for our firm with the formal announcement of Ivy Pointe Title, LLC.
Last week, we moved in, hooked up and welcomed experienced real estate attorney Rick Turner as President of our new title insurance company, along with experienced title professionals Evan Meredith and Patricia Gillespie. The move-in went smoothly, and clients are receiving them strongly.
This week, we formally announce their arrival with a mailing and the launch of our new Ivy Pointe Title, LLC.
We want to thank our many vendors who helped with the outstanding marketing materials, and our technologically cutting-edge web site: Chris Bollman and Karyn Lawrence of Round Pixels, our web developer; Sue LaChapelle, our graphic designer; our printer, Cathy Brinkman of Curry Printing (always timely and good quality); Pete Witte of Baron Engraving who made and installed our signage (involving some late nights and weekends); and our paralegal Laura Linneman who worked tirelessly to coordinate the many pieces of the puzzle to assure a timely and quality launch.
We have more pieces to the web site yet to launch to meet (and hopefully exceed) our clients’ needs.
It has been an amazing and rewarding experience working with all these professionals at Ivy Pointe Title and our vendor team who got us launched. We recommend their services to each of you.
For those following the COAST “Tweets” case, three years into the case we had oral argument Friday before Judge Mike Barrett on our Motion for Summary Judgment. The argument went very well, handled by COAST General Counsel Christopher Finney.
As background, COAST Treasurer Mark Miller on behalf of COAST was “tweeting” about the second Streetcar ballot issue in the 2011 election (see this NYT article). Rob Richardson, Jr. of Cincinnatians for Progress trumped up “false claims” charges against COAST, which the OEC dismissed. But COAST decided to end the OEC’s reign of intimidation.
This case and the Susan B. Anthony List companion case, could spell the end to their “false claims” jurisdiction.
Judge Barrett promises a decision on the preliminary injunction soon (perhaps next week), with a decision on the merits of the case perhaps before year’s end.