A cashier’s check is better than an ordinary personal check, right? You can rely on it and turn around the cash quickly, right?
Well, no.
Not only is a bad or fraudulent cashier’s check no better than a bad personal check, there is raging fraud involving cashier’s checks on the internet: Craigslist, Facebook marketplace, etc.
Read this article on the topic.
The Ohio standard for “marketable title”
The standard for real estate title is, without putting too fine a point on it, pristine. This is true not only in Ohio, but but in every state.
Indeed, one really could put a fine point on it. Nearly any title defect can be a “cloud” on title that impairs its marketability.
Some minor title defects are OK
As is addressed here, some title defects can be “papered over” with title insurance; others are made acceptable under the marketable title act or standards and customs that allow title attorneys and title insurance companies to ignore minor defects. Both of these solutions can allow a transaction to close.
But the standard in title is, essentially, perfection. A buyer is not going to buy, a lender is not going accept a mortgage to secure a loan, and a title insurance company is not going to insure matters that are a “cloud” to title to real estate.
An unreleased Land Installment Contact “clouds” title
I recently helped a client who had “sold” their home on Land Installment Contract. After three years of payments, the buyer was to pay the balance of the Land Installment Contract, a “balloon payment,” and then get a deed conveying title to the property. Unfortunately, the buyer defaulted and moved out of the property at the end of the term.
[Is the buyer liable for monetary damages in such circumstance? Probably. But the cost to pursue those claims many times exceeds the recovery. Many sellers are wise to just pack their bags and move on to the next opportunity.]
The seller was able to quickly re-sell the property to another buyer, but the recorded land installment contract constituted a “cloud” on title, making title unmarketable. When the closing was set to occur, the title insurance company for the lender and buyer refused to pass on the title.
How do you clear title “clouds”
There are two ways to clear a “cloud” of this type: (a) buyer and seller jointly execute a notarized document in recordable form voluntarily terminating the Land Installment Contract or (b) a signature of a Common Pleas Court Judge in an appropriate proceeding extinguishing the Land Installment Contract and then the passage of an additional 30 days to avoid an appeal of that decision (or the exhaustion of appellate rights all the way through the Ohio Supreme Court).
Other than these two alternate steps, there is no “shortcut” to clear and marketable title to defeat a Land Installment Contract that is of record.
And the judicial proceedings could take 12 to 36 months, or even longer, to clear the title problems.
Many title problems can only be addressed in the same way: Either the party who has a colorable claim must sign a recordable instrument releasing the claim or a Judge, after appropriate due process of judicial proceedings, signs an Order wiping away the title claim. This can be an extended and expensive undertaking.
How can an owner avoid the fate of a “clouded” title?
How can a seller avoid the fate of an impaired title?
First, buy property only after a title examination and with a proper owner’s policy of title insurance.
Second, once you own property that has clear title, don’t sign and record a Land Installment Contract clouding the title. (Or, get a significant enough up-front down payment make it worth the while of judicially extinguishing the buyer’s interest at a later date if he defaults.)
Similarly, granting voluntary but poorly-thought-through covenants, easements, mortgages and other instruments can foul one’s real estate title and make the title either unmarketable or less valuable than otherwise might be the case.
Involuntary “clouds”
This blog entry addresses problems that an owner causes by his own signature. But other title problems can arise from, for example, mechanics liens arising from unpaid claims of a contractor on real property, defects that existed when an owner took title to property, and affidavits that another party places of record unilaterally declaring an interest in your land. These, too, may require one of the two steps noted above to clear, but they are not as easily avoided as ones created by the owner’s own hand.
Conclusion
The essential message of this blog entry is that title is a delicate thing, and can be “clouded” or impaired easily. Thus, don’t voluntarily sign documents — even if they might initially seem like a good idea — that will constitute a cloud on title, at least not without careful consideration. Cautiously think through the impact of documents that you voluntarily elect to place of record.
We’ve seen to over and over again, individual lenders “conned” by a borrower into making a supposedly secured loan, but in fact the same borrower has “pledged” the same collateral to multiple lenders for duplicate loans. That means, of course, when it comes time to pay the money back, there is not enough cash to go around to the various lenders and someone is left holding the bag (or everyone is left holding the bag).
This blog entry explains the scam, and tells our readers how to carefully avoid it.
Here’s how the scam works: The borrower has control of an asset. It might be a piece of real estate or a business. Using that asset, he is able to convince the lender of his “bona fides.”
The borrower says: “If I had enough cash, I could complete the improvements on this property, and repay you your money with a good rate of interest.” Or, “if I had enough money, I could stock the shelves of this business, sell more inventory, and pay you a good return on your loaned funds.”
Wanting to help the fraudster, or, more likely, motivated by the greed of an above-market rate or return, the lender lends money.
But either trusting the borrower or trying to save money on legal fees and other expenses like an appraisal, the individual lender advances the cash in anticipation of great rewards when the property sells or the inventory turns, but the lender fails to properly document and secure his loan.
Because nothing is recorded in terms of a security interest from the first lender, the borrower then goes to a second, a third and a fourth lender, promising the same high returns, and showing unsecured business assets (real estate, inventory, accounts receivable) as assets to stand behind the obligation. These subsequent lenders are similarly fooled.
I once had an investor from Chicago. He was lured in to a scheme whereby his Cincinnati borrower was purchasing single family homes, and supposedly renovating them with the investor’s cash. For simplicity and to save legal fees, the investor did not get a mortgage against the real estate and did not come to Cincinnati to check on the progress of the improvements. He simply trusted what the Cincinnati borrower was telling him, and relied upon some phony cell phone photographs of the progress on the improvements. And he wrote check after check after check to the borrower.
What was really happening was that the local borrower was taking my client’s cash for the purchase and improvement of property, but (a) the borrower was not in fact completing the improvements and (b) he had pledged the proceeds from the same properties to three other lenders.
The result of these scams is entirely predictable: eventually the lenders want to be repaid, usually when the real property sells, the inventory “turns,” or the business is supposed to become profitable.
And each of the multiple lenders wants their cash more or less simultaneously.
Of course, there is no cash to pay these various lenders, or perhaps even one of them. The lenders are left holding the bag.
Sure, the lenders can try to recover their investment through either litigation or — more likely — bankruptcy court. But in all likelihood the borrower has no assets and the process will be a big, expensive mess.
We were recently reminded of this scam by this article from the Los Angeles Times. There, a scammer conned “thousands of investors” out of more than $1.3 billion in a more complicated version of the same scam.
One wonders why someone did not ask for proper documentation and a first mortgage position in these supposed real estate investments and why someone did not blow the whistle on this guy earlier. Of course, folks still are asking the same question about Bernie Madoff
First, “neither a borrower nor lender be” /1/ is not a bad admonition for individuals with cash to loan. The lure of high rates of return may not be — likely are not — worth the risk. Banks are in the business of lending money — and collecting it back. And they are pretty good at it: Assessing the risk, securing the asset, obtaining guarantors for debt, assuring a proper down payment. These folks have actuaries who assess the risk of certain kinds of lending and have the experience to avoid pitfalls that amateurs make.
Thus, as a general rule, if a borrower needs to borrow funds, tell him to go to a bank, which can spread the risk among many loans, assess the risks make prudent lending decision, and require appropriate down payments, guarantees, and security. They also know to check for pre-existing liens and to properly document each loan. They also don’t tolerate excuses for late payments that private lenders might. They do this for a living.
But if you feel you must lend privately (or simply elect to do so), here are some pointers:
Using these techniques, a private lender can avoid the “multiple lenders” scam, and or at least — among all the others — be properly documented and secured in a first lien position against assets to pay the indebtedness.
Our firm knows each of these methods and can help you implement them properly them.
You have worked hard and invested carefully to accumulate the assets you have. But others don’t have that same success, that same diligence and that same honesty. There are millions of fraudsters out there glad to take your cash today on the promise of paying you tomorrow. And they have neither the intention or the ability to fulfill that promise.
Use a Finney Law Firm transactional attorney — Isaac Heintz (513-943-6654), Eli Kraft-Jacobs (513-797-2853), Rick Turner (513-943-5661), Chris Finney (513-943-6655) or Kevin Hopper (513-943-6650) — to make certain that you are properly secured in for the money you are lending.
__________________________
/1/ From the web site “LiteraryDevices.Net“:
This is a line spoken by Polonius in Act-I, Scene-III of William Shakespeare’s play, Hamlet. The character Polonius counsels his son Laertes before he embarks on his visit to Paris. He says, “Neither a borrower nor a lender be; / For loan oft loses both itself and friend.”
It means do not lend or borrow money from a friend, because if you do so, you will lose both your friend and your money. If you lend, he will avoid paying back, and if you borrow you will fall out of your savings, as you turn into a spendthrift, and face humiliation.
It”s amazing this same advice applies more than 400 years after this noted author’s death.
In our relentless drive to provide value to clients in commercial litigation, one immeasurably painful exercise is convincing opposing counsel and adverse parties to comply with the civil rules in producing discovery responses in a timely fashion.
In one case our firm has underway at present, we have granted two 30-day extensions of time to respond to written discovery beyond the 30-days the civil rules provide, and beyond that opposing counsel is still 10 more days late. Opposing counsel — despite repeated promises — has refused to provide a single responsive document or answer. We thus filed a motion to compel.
His response, in part, contained the following:
Yes, he actually told the Court that he feared “the risks associated with”… “miss[ing] a significant portion of his wife’s birthday party,” after already having had more than 100 days to respond to written discovery.
It’s such a joy to argue these motions. It’s sublimely absurd.
We’ve all heard of bankruptcy being used as a shield to protect against creditors’ attempts at debt collection. However, in the practice of law especially, the automatic stay is no longer an issue reserved for those who file bankruptcy, nor does it exist solely within the confines of the bankruptcy courts. Sure, the bankruptcy court generally governs matters involving the “stay” but, particularly in our increasingly adversarial society, these issues tend to bleed over into other legal proceedings as well, such that every litigator (and perhaps every litigant) should be apprised of the ways in which the automatic stay could impact them and their claims.
The bankruptcy petition triggers the automatic stay – imaginary armor that then cloaks the debtor (the person who files bankruptcy), halting all collection efforts by creditors (those seeking to collect money from the debtor). Uponfiling bankruptcy, a debtor is immediately protected by the automatic stay which prohibits, among other things, “any act to collect, assess, or recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case. . . .” 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(6). The automatic stay imposes on creditors an affirmative dutyof compliance. Sternberg v. Johnston, 595 F.3d 937, 943 (9th Cir. 2010).
In other words, once you file bankruptcy, your creditors (whether that be the telephone company merely seeking to collect a past-due bill, or someone intending to sue you on a $1 million tort claim) are no longer allowed to take any steps toward recovering that which they think you owe them, in court or otherwise. They cannot call you, they cannot send you a letter threatening action against you if you refuse to pay, they cannot file a lawsuit against you, and they cannot continue to pursue claims that are already pending against you without explicit relief from the bankruptcy court in which your petition is filed. Violating the automatic stay is a very serious offense that often results in an award of damages and attorney’s fees against the violating party. 11 U.S.C. 362(k).
Perhaps you represent a defendant in a contract case, your client filed for bankruptcy (invoking the stay), and the plaintiff’s attorney then serves you with discovery request asking your client to admit that he owes the money sought in the lawsuit. The automatic stay protects your client. Or, maybe you are a passenger who was injured in a car accident, and you are preparing to sue the at-fault driver (a debtor in bankruptcy) for reimbursement of medical expenses. The automatic stay likely prevents you from doing so.
In a practical sense, the affirmative duty of compliance placed on creditors even goes beyond just monitoring their own conduct to ensure that they are not violating the stay – it imposes a duty to police against others, namely courts, violating the stay, as well. This may seem a harsh result, but the Sixth Circuit has explicitly held that creditors cannot sit idly by and allow stay violations occur. See generally Wohleber v. Skurko, 2019 Bankr. LEXIS 653 (6th Cir. March 4, 2019).
In the Wohleber case, the husband-debtor was subjected to a post-petition sentencing hearing arising out of a pre-petition contempt proceeding (i.e., he failed to pay a property settlement previously ordered by a domestic relations court and the hearing was to determine his consequences). At the hearing, the debtor was put in jail until he paid the amount ordered by the domestic relations court (also pre-petition). The husband-debtor later argued that the wife-creditor and her attorney violated the automatic stay by allowing the sentencing to proceed. The bankruptcy court, initially, rejected this argument on the grounds that neither the wife-creditor, nor her attorney took any affirmative action to collect the debt post-petition. However, the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the wife-creditor and her attorney had an affirmative duty to “prevent the use of the sentencing hearing and [subsequent confinement] of the [debtor-husband] to coerce payment of the dischargeable property settlement.” Id., at *44.
In sum, the automatic stay is not a concept reserved for bankruptcy courts and the attorneys who practice primarily within it. Instead, it intersects with nearly every area of the law and, frequently, in litigation. Because the stakes are so high for stay violations and missteps can be costly, it is important that creditors (or potential creditors, or their counsel) are in-tune with what the stay means and the type of conduct it prohibits. It is likewise important for debtors to know their rights so that they can recognize improper conduct if and when it occurs to their detriment.
______________________
For assistance with all of your commercial litigation needs, contact Casey A. Taylor at 513.943.5673 or Bradley M. Gibson at 513.943-6661.
As I meet with clients to explain the expensive and drawn-out odyssey that litigation can become, it can be a challenge to explain the mind-bending mental gymnastics that attorneys can force parties to endure. Things that are painfully logical and simple to ordinary folks (laymen, non-attorneys) can be expensive and difficult to establish in court as litigants want to argue over absolutely everything.
The best example I can give of this is an exchange I had in a trial held before Federal District Court Magistrate Litkovich in January of this year.
This trial was an MSD claim relating to the MSD’s administrative claims process for basements subject to sanitary sewer backups. This case was an extreme instance in which our client experienced more than 9′ of effluent that came into his basement on a regular basis, and MSD simply refused to stand behind its obligations under a consent decree arising from prior litigation with the US EPA.
To win, we had to prove these things: (a) sanitary sewer “surcharge” flooded his basement, (b) on multiple occasions, (c) that MSD was unable to develop an “engineering solution” that would stop the flooding, and (d) that he had made a claim to the MSD hotline within 24 hours after an incident.
The flooding was so severe and repeated that these elements were easily proved. Yet for two years, MSD had refused to negotiate a settlement in good faith. They insisted upon a trial, even though there was no factual issue in dispute; from our perspective, there was simply nothing to try.
So, MSD’s attorneys adopted the defense at the hearing that our client, the Plaintiff, could not prove that it would actually rain again:
Tim Sullivan of Taft, Stettinius & Hollister represented MSD at the hearing and here he was questioning my client’s expert witness:
Q. And if we had no rain, if climate change really turns out to be as dire as some people tell us, you would agree this property would have no problem in the future?
A. If there was no rain?
Q. Right, or not enough rain to cause any surcharge from any part of the Sewer District system.
A. Yeah, I would think the property would be — certainly you could take another look at living there and going there if you have no risk of backups, any kind of backup.
I must admit it was a creative question: “What if it never rains again?” Brilliant! And we already had our lineup of witnesses named. Who could testify with requisite expertise that, in fact, Cincinnati would experience a rain event in the future?
We ultimately settled the case. But after 30 years of doing this I once again learned the hard lesson that lawyers can argue over absolutely anything.
And for the record, since this hearing, Cincinnati has experienced 15″ in rainfall more than is average for this point in the year. Yes, Virginia, it is going to rain again.
_____________________
For help with your litigation challenges, call Bradley M. Gibson at 513-943-6661 and for help with MSD claims call attorney Julie M. Gugino at 513-943-5669.
_____________________
A copy of the transcript excerpt in this exchange is attached here. The quoted language is at page 19, starting at line 13.
One of the many unfortunate outcomes of the subprime mortgage crisis has been that unscrupulous predatory investors scooped up broad portfolios of real estate at very low prices, and then re-sold them in troubled neighborhoods to unqualified buyers on land installment contract.
This had the dual effects of victimizing unknowledgeable and unqualified buyers and keeping many times unoccupied and dilapidated properties from re-entering the stream of commerce with qualified buyers.
One of those predatory investors has been Harbour Portfolio Advisors. Their tactics have spawned a New York Times article on their predatory practices, a law suit from the City of Cincinnati that resulted in an injunction against their practices from Judge Robert Ruehlman (Hamilton County Case No. A1702044) and an ordinance with new land installment contract regulations from the City of Cincinnati. It takes quite a track record to spur that kind of remedial activity.
The routine practiced by Harbour Portfolio appears to be:
Our firm recently represented a victim of Harbour Portfolio’s predatory practices, and obtained a judgment from Judge Jody Luebbers. The result was that without further payment our client obtained clear title to the property, obtained a damages award from Harbour Portfolio, and also an award of his attorneys fees from Harbour Portfolio.
If you have been victimized by the unscrupulous tactics of Harbour Portfolio in Ohio or Kentucky or other predatory lenders or sellers, contact either Chris Finney (513-943-6655) or Julie Gugino (513-943-5669).
We are glad to “Make a Difference” in your property or lending dispute.
The City of Cincinnati has enacted a new series of restrictions on property owners selling under land installment contracts as Chapter 870 of the Cincinnati Municipal Code.
It appears to be a response to the questionable tactics of a single large investor who bought a significant number of properties in the subprime mortgage crisis, and then resold portions of the portfolio to unqualified buyers on land installment contract. This investor/seller is Harbor Portfolio Advisors, against whom this firm has successfully litigated. You may read more on that here.
The new ordinance provides:
For more information about enforcing your rights under the new land installment contract statute or suing Harbor Portfolio Advisors in Ohio or Kentucky, contact Chris Finney (513-943-6655) or Julie Gugino (513-943-5669).
Nearly every aspect of the modern world is regulated, in one manner or another, by the use of contractual agreements. As a result of their ubiquity, it is unrealistic to expect the average person to read every word of every contract they sign. To be clear, under no circumstance do we advise signing a contract without reading it, but one must discard reality to believe that such advice will be received, much less heeded. That said, the purpose of this article is to provide guidance for the average person to use when faced with a contract, particularly in light of the general propensity to sign contracts without reviewing them.
Insofar as this article is concerned, the most prominent aspect of contract law is the distinction between ordinary contracts and adhesion contracts. Consider ordinary contracts to be agreements between two or more parties that are reached by negotiation. For example: (i) a real estate purchase contract where one party must sell his or her property in exchange for a negotiated purchase price or (ii) an employment contract where one party must perform work in exchange for negotiated income and benefits. As these contracts are bargained for, the parties need to be absolutely sure that the terms agreed upon are, in fact, the terms contained in the written agreement. This concern is exacerbated by the endless spectrum of legal clauses that can be drafted into a contract. As a result, the only way to achieve certainty is to read the contract, and consult with legal counsel regarding any provisions that: (i) you do not understand, (ii) you are not comfortable with agreeing to, and/or (iii) are contrary to your understanding of the agreement of the parties.
On the other hand, adhesion contracts are best defined as agreements between two or more parties wherein the terms are set by one party without negotiation. Examples of adhesion contracts include: insurance contracts, cell phone provider agreements, loan agreements, etc.
Again, this is not advice to sign contracts without reading, but, for those persons who are going to do so anyway, it is worth noting that between the two types of contracts, adhesion contracts pose less concern for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to, the following:
1. If you want the product being offered, then you have to agree to the terms being offered. Why? Because you have no bargaining power to negotiate them. For example, if you walk into Verizon and ask them to change a provision in their cell phone provider agreement, then you will, in all likelihood, leave the store without a cell phone plan.
2. Countless people before you have signed an agreement with identical or nearly identical terms. This does not in and of itself mean that a contract is risk free; however, continuing with Verizon as an example, it is reasonable to equate the number of long term Verizon customers with the acceptability of Verizon’s contractual terms.
3. Other than notice provisions (i.e., requirements to notify other parties upon the occurrence of a triggering event) and negative covenants (i.e., promises to refrain from doing something), consumer obligations under adhesion contracts typically revolve around money to be paid in exchange for a service or product. In other words, the consumer side of an adhesion contract is less likely to have obligations beyond the payment of money.
4. Analyzing a dozen or more pages of legalese can be a burden for the most brilliant of legal minds, so the idea that the average person can read through the same while standing at a check-out counter is nothing short of absurd. While every contractual provision is important, the average consumer is mainly concerned about the cost of the product or service. Thus, the decision to execute a contract is more often based on the consumers’ desire to obtain the service or product rather than their agreeability to convoluted contractual provisions.
5. Unconscionable contract provisions are not enforceable. A provision is unconscionable if it is substantively unfair or oppressive to one party, or otherwise represents a degree of unreasonableness. If there are unconscionable terms in a contract, then a court will either strike the provision from the contract or declare the contract void in its entirety.
In addition to those reasons stated above, Ohio consumers are protected under the Consumer Sales Practices Act (the “CSPA”), which states among other things that suppliers cannot commit unconscionable acts or practices in connection with a consumer transaction. A supplier is defined as “a seller, lessor, assignor, franchisor, or other person engaged in the business of effecting or soliciting consumer transactions, whether or not the person deals directly with the consumer.” To determine if a transaction or contract is unconscionable, CSPA asks if the supplier: (i) knowingly took advantage of a consumer because of the consumer’s physical or mental infirmities; (ii) charged a price that substantially exceeded the price of similar property or services that are readily obtainable; (iii) knew the consumer could not receive a benefit from the property or services; (iv) knew the consumer was unable to pay; (v) required consumer to enter a transaction where supplier knew the terms were substantially one sided; (vi) knowingly made a misleading statement that the consumer was likely to rely on, or (vii) refused to make a refund for a return unless there is a sign posted at the establishment stating such refund policy.
The CSPA also regulates suppliers by proscribing unfair and/or deceptive acts in connection with consumer transactions. Moreover, CSPA lists a series of acts and practices that are per se deceptive. That list includes, but is not limited to, a supplier’s false representation to a consumer of any of the following: (i) a product or service contains benefits that it does not have; (ii) a product or service is of a particular grade or quality, when it is not; (iii) a product is new or unused, when it is not; (iv) the product or service is available for a reason that does not exist; (v) a replacement or repair is needed, when it is not; and (vi) that a price advantage exists, when it does not. If a supplier runs afoul of this statute—or any CSPA provision—the consumer may bring a cause of action for the actual damages he or she incurred plus an amount not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000.00).
Ultimately, you should read every contract that you sign, regardless of any representations or verbal agreements. It does not matter what you agreed to verbally if you signed a document that states otherwise. This article is not intended and shall not be construed as providing advice to sign documents without reading them. Rather, this article merely offers a pragmatic view of the all-too-common practice of signing contracts without reading them.
Someone owes you money.
But you have been slow to assign the collection to an attorney for fear of the legal fees and expenses. This concern certainly is well-founded.
However, Finney Law Firm (a) has the experience, tools and “attitude” to maximize your return from that activity, and (b) is willing to work with you on creative fee relationships, so that the risk and cost of the collection activity does not fall fully on the your shoulders.
In every piece of prospective litigation, I attempt to analyze with the client the three components to litigation success: (a) liability (establishing the legal basis the other party owes you money [for example, is the contract clear and the breach easy to establish?]), (b) damages and (c) collectibility.
Let us start at the end: does this target defendant have a pot to pee in?
If you were to get a judgment of any size against him, could we collect from this debtor the sums needed to make the litigation worthwhile form the inception? Many times the answer is “no.” If so, you might want to walk away from the matter.
Does the debtor own a house? A business property? If so, we can fairly quickly ascertain the mortgage indebtedness versus the value of the property.
Does the debtor own a business? Car? Other assets? Many times debtors structure their lives and their assets in such a way that a creditor really can’t get anything from them — their house in in their wife’s name, and their other assets are well-hidden.
Ahhh, liability.
The client many times relates to us that liability is “open and shut.” We file suit and the other side “surely will settle.”
Unfortunately it does not always pan out that way. Clients frequently don’t understand the facts of their own case, don’t know all the facts, and wear rose-colored glasses about their prospects of success. Further, even the simplest fact pattern that clearly leads to liability can be time-consuming and laborious in Court to bring to conclusion.
The client needs a realistic understanding of their chances of success and the Court path to a final enforceable judgement.
And that brings us to the damages calculation. Defendants, Plaintiffs and Courts all have differing perspectives on how to calculate damages numbers. And a separate blog entry would have to explore that issue in more depth. But take, for example, the sale of a house. Our client is the seller. The buyer is clearly in breach. But the seller sixty days later re-sells the house to another buyer for $5,000 more than the buyer in breach agreed to pay. (And in today’s go-go real estate marketplace, that’s not an uncommon occurrence). What “damages” has the seller sustained from a clear breach of contract? Other than the time-value of holding the property (taxes, insurance, utilities and maintenance), likely none.
So, once you file suit and convince the Judge to sign the entry granting an award of damages against a defendant, you are “off to the races,” Right? Well, not exactly.
We have to first identify assets and income streams. Does the target own a piece of real property? A bank account? A job? Securities accounts? Do they own a closely-held business? The Finney Law Firm has gum-shoe and cyber assets and relationships that help us to learn of the income and assets of clients in the collection process.
Our tools to force payment of a legal judgment include:
We are not oblivious to the challenges our clients face of withering legal fees and endless court appearances to collect a small and simple debt. But at the same time, the tremendous work many times required to get a judgment and pursue it through collection also is known to us.
However, if we are going to recommend that a client proceed with a collections action — which necessarily means the economics should work out positively for the client — we are always willing to engage in a discussion about creative fee relationships (hourly fees, flat fees and contingent fees) to achieve the desired end.
The idea on a contingent fee is the more you collect, the more we make — everyone should be happy if the “ring the bell.” But on the flip side, it it turns out to be a dry well — and many collection actions that seem promising on the front end turn out to be a dry well on the back end — then we share in the pain.
Collections work can be great fun, outmaneuvering a defendant who knows he owes the debt, but is using his wits — legal and illegal — to prevent you from getting to those assets.
So, let your deadbeats become our firm’s problem and allow us to turn that bad debt into an asset. Call Chris Finney (513-943-6655) or Julie Gugino (513-943-5669) to learn how we can help you.