We are pleased to announce the launch today of Ivy Pointe Title, LLC and the addition to our staff of President Richard P. Turner, Patricia A. Gillespie and Evan A. Meredith.
With Ivy Pointe Title, we offer a broadened range of real estate and closing services for residential and commercial transactions in Ohio and Kentucky, allowing us to better serve our clients.
Watch for our official announcement coming soon.
A recent Enquirer article highlighted Specific Performance as a remedy in real estate contracts. Specific Performance, as opposed to money damages, means that the judge will order the parties to a
contract to complete the contract. This is a rarely used remedy. In the case covered by the Enquirer, the seller is seeking an order from the Judge to force the buyers to go through with the sale and purchase his property.
Finney Law Firm recently represented buyers in seeking specific performance after the woman they contracted to purchase a home from informed the buyers that the she would not go through with the sale.
Our clients were beside themselves. They had hunted throughout the area for the perfect home and finally found it, negotiated and executed a contract for the home, and sold their home in reliance on that contract. Their dreams of settling into their new home were dashed in an instant.
The seller had gotten cold feet and found an attorney who suggested that there never was a valid contract because she hadn’t returned the accepted contract until a few hours after the time for acceptance set forth in the contract.
After reviewing the case law we determined that the contract was a valid notwithstanding the seller’s argument.
Explaining the costs and risks of litigation, we worked with our clients to weigh their options. They could walk away from the purchase and begin the house-hunt anew; they could offer more money in the hopes of warming the seller’s cold feet; or they could bring suit for specific performance on the contract. As with almost every case, litigation was offered as a last resort.
Ultimately, believing that the seller would not negotiate and they could not find a comparable home, our clients decided to sue to enforce the contract.
It took thirteen months to get to summary judgment, but eventually we prevailed and Judge Nadel ordered specific performance of the contract (for the first time in his judicial career).
After Judge Nadel ordered specific performance we were able to negotiate a settlement payment for damages and attorney fees and finally close on the sale. We’ve never seen two people happier to sign mortgage documents.
Let us know how we can make a difference for you and your real estate needs.
On August 18, 2014, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a decision in N.W. v. Boone County Board of Education, which denied IDEA reimbursement to the parents of an autistic child. The parents filed the action under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) arguing that the school district had failed to offer a “free appropriate public education” (“FAPE”) to their child, as required by IDEA.
This case involved an autistic student who had been diagnosed with apraxia. Under the student’s Individual Educational Program (“IEP”) the student had been placed at St. Rita’s School for the Deaf. However, the parents became dissatisfied with St. Rita’s program, and unilaterally removed their son and placed him in a private school in Cincinnati without the local school district’s consent.
After unilaterally placing their son in a new private school, the parents sought reimbursement of tuition and transportation costs from the school district. The school district, however, maintained that it could provide the student with FAPE. The parties attempted to mediate the placement issue for three years, without success, and eventually litigation ensued at the administrative level, and then before the federal courts.
The parents filed suit in the District Court offering two main arguments for reimbursement: (1) that the school district’s plan failed to provide a FAPE; and (2) IDEA’s “Stay-Put” provision permitted the student to continue attending the private school and required the school district to reimburse the parents for tuition and transportation expenses at such school until the dispute was resolved.
Despite finding that the parents failed to show that the school district denied their son a FAPE and that the parents unilaterally withdrew their child from the district’s schools, the court ordered the school district to reimburse the parents for the tuition and transportation costs incurred by attending the private school. The school district appealed the decision to the Sixth Circuit, which reversed the decision.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit held that the IDEA does not permit the courts to order reimbursement absent a finding that a school district failed to offer a FAPE. The Sixth Circuit relied on the district court’s determination that the parents had failed to prove the school district did not offer a FAPE, which the parents did not appeal to the Sixth Circuit.
Moreover, the Sixth Circuit ruled that the IDEA’s “Stay-Put” provision did not apply to the student. The Sixth Circuit stated that in order to qualify for stay-put protection and reimbursement, the school district’s approval is necessary for the student to be “placed” at a school. Thus, the Sixth Circuit determined that the student had not be “placed” at the private school because his parents unilaterally enrolled him at the private school, without the school district’s approval.
Under the IDEA, a FAPE must be provided to all disabled children who are 2 to 21 years of age. A FAPE is to be provided at the public’s expense and in conformity with each disabled child’s IEP. According to the Sixth Circuit, however, a school district will not be forced to reimburse parents for expenses incurred for private schooling when the parents unilaterally enroll their child in private school, without establishing that the school district failed to offer a FAPE to the student.
Construction on our next expansion is underway!
On Monday, October 13, the Finney Law Firm will launch Ivy Pointe Title, LLC, performing residential and commercial title, escrow and closing services. On that date we welcome three new employees to quickly and efficiently process your real estate purchases and loan closings.
Our title company motto is “accurate and on time, every time,” and our goal is to be consistently accessible to all closing participants, and to close their transactions on time and without error.
This is our latest opportunity to expand our services to our many lender, investor, Realtor, and business clients, and is responsive to the confidence you have placed in our firm to date.
Our attorneys and staff are united in striving to “make a difference” for our clients every day. This is one more facet — a pillar for the success of your business — in advancing that singular objective.
Thank you to everyone who has been “on board” with us in this venture.
The Dispatch has the story here.
The Finney Law Firm is counsel to the Smitherman for City Council Committee. As he ran for reelection in 2013, a dark-money group called Cincinnatians for Jobs Now produced and ran hundreds of thousands of dollars in negative advertisements disparaging Council member Smitherman, encouraging voters to oppose his re-election to Council, and promoting the election of certain other candidates for Mayor and City Council. The shadow committee filed no campaign finance reports, which would have identified its income and expenses.
Our firm has filed a Complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission to force compliance with campaign finance reporting laws.
This week, the Ohio Elections Commission ruled on pending motions on discovery, and required Cincinnatians for Jobs Now to produce documents and submit participants to depositions, as sought by our client.
You may read the OEC order here.
Attached here is Judge Kubicki’s Order signed yesterday that extends the “stay” of Hamilton County’s order abolishing registered land through the end of the judicial proceedings on this matter.
This is an important piece of public interest litigation advanced by the Finney Law Firm.
SCOTUS Blog reports here on today’s expedited interim and narrow (5-4) decision of the US Supreme Court ending “Golden Week” in Ohio, the week in which a citizen can register and vote on the same day, at least for 2014.
The order may also mean that early voting will not be permitted on most Sundays and after 5 PM leading to election day, depending on the timing of the state certiorari petition.
Last Will and Testament. A Last Will and Testament directs the distribution of probate assets upon the death of an individual (“testator”). Probate assets are assets held in an individual’s name at the time of his or her death that do not otherwise transfer by contract (e.g., transfer on death designations, joint and survivorship, etc.).
Probate assets are subject to the oversight of Probate Court and administered in the County in which the decedent resided at the time of death.
The Last Will and Testament includes a provision for the designation of the personal representative (Executor) of the testator’s choosing, to be appointed by Probate Court.
Trust. A Trust is a legal relationship whereby property is held by one party for the benefit of another. There are two (2) basic categories of written Trusts; Living Trusts (Inter Vivos Trusts) and Testamentary Trusts.
The primary difference between a Testamentary Trust and a Living Trust in Ohio is that the Testamentary Trust is under the supervision of the Probate Court from the appointment of the Trustee to final distribution. In connection with a Living Trust, the Trustee administers the Trust without the involvement of the Probate Court, except under certain special circumstances. An advantage of a Living Trust is that the Trust, Trust assets, and distributions are not of public record.
Living Trusts are revocable or irrevocable, and are set up during the lifetime of the Grantor. Trusts are also very useful for setting up funds for the benefit of someone who is handicapped or incompetent. They are frequently used by parents and siblings for a “special” family member. Trusts can also be used in Medicaid planning.
Living Trusts are often used in moderate and large estates to assist management and to avoid incurring Executor fees and reduce attorney fees at death.
Testamentary Trusts are established in the Grantor’s Last Will and Testament, and are funded, if ever, after the death of the testator. A Testamentary Trust may never be funded because the testator may make funding contingent upon certain circumstances; for example, the Last Will and Testament may state that the Executor funds the Trust only if the testator and the testator’s spouse both die while their children are minors.
Ohio law gives Probate Court the exclusive power to direct and control the conduct of the Testamentary Trustee. The Testamentary Trustee is required to prepare and file with Probate Court, an account of the Trustee’s administration of the Trust at least once in each two (2) years, or at any other time upon order of the Probate Court. The account must include an itemized statement of all receipts of the Testamentary Trustee, and of all disbursements and distributions made by the Testamentary Trustee during the accounting period
Ohio is somewhat unique in all the nation in judging and punishing speech in the context of political campaigns it subjectively deems false. As our blog’s readers know, our firm has been at the forefront — successfully so far — of litigation to get Ohio out of this business entirely as an infringement of core First Amendment liberties.
Notwithstanding clear pronouncements from the U.S. Supreme Court that government should not be in the business of judging and punishing political speech claimed to be false, last week, the Ohio Supreme Court piled on in this genre in its decision to punish Judge Colleen O’Toole from Ohio’s 11th District Court of Appeals for the audacity during her 2012 election campaign to call herself “Judge.” (When Judge O’Toole ran for election that year, she was not on the bench as she had been defeated in a 2010 re-election campaign.) You may read about that decision in the Cleveland Plain Dealer here and you may read the decision itself here. Court News Ohio has the story here.
First, let’s start with the “truth” of the “statement” by Judge O’Toole in calling herself “Judge.” As the Internet amply tells us here, here and here, it is entirely proper and appropriate to address a former Judge as “Judge” for the remainder of his or her life. It is an honor they rightfully have earned. Thus, there is no falsehood in others or the Judge himself using the title “Judge.” Rather, it is entirely polite and proper (or at a minimum, even if not preferred, it is a commonly accepted title).
Still, the Ohio Supreme Court has elected to discipline Judge O’Toole for her self-identification as “Judge” during her 2012 campaign to return to the bench.
In the decision, the Court did narrow the rules applicable to Judges, declaring unconstitutional that portion of the rule that prohibited dissemination of information that is true, but “deceiving or misleading” to the average listener.
Judge O’Toole was formally reprimanded, fined $1,000 and ordered to pay $2,500 in attorneys fees and costs for her prosecution.