Warren County Auditor Matt Nolan and the Finney Law Firm will give a presentation to the Real Estate Investor’s Association of Greater Cincinnati (REIAGC) covering the property valuation challenge process.

The correct valuation of real property can mean the difference between success and failure for residential and commercial landlords, and their tenants.

On Thursday, March 7, our attorney and Matt Nolan will discuss the procedure for bringing a challenge, issues to consider prior to bringing a challenge, and next steps if the initial challenge is not successful.

Click on this link to the REIAGC’s website for more information or to register to attend. Registration is free for members, $35.00 for non-members.

Learn more about Warren County Auditor Matt Nolan here. Learn more about Finney Law Firm’s Property Valuation practice here.

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:

  1. Selling the property to unknowledgeable and unqualified buyers on land installment contract,
  2. Receiving a down payment and some monthly payments from the buyers.
  3. Once one payment is missed, declaring the buyers in default and taking the property back.
  4. If the buyer is able to perform, refusing to cooperate in the conclusion of the sale, eventually forcing a default from the buyer, and moving back to Step #3.  (This is certainly what our client experienced)

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:

  • Before selling a property on land installment contract, the vendor must first obtain a certificate of occupancy for the property (CMC 870-03).
  • The vendor must both deliver to the certificate of occupancy to the vendee and record the land contract within 20 days (CMC 870-04).
  • The vendor may not require the vendee to sign a quit claim deed to the vendor at the time of execution of the land installment contract (CMC 870-07(d)).
  • The name listed on the records of the Auditor is presumed to be the owner for purposes of enforcing the ordinance.
  • The remedies under the Ordinance include rescission of the land contract (meaning the vendee can get paid back to him sums paid thereunder), and actual damages, statutory damages of $5,000 per violation and the vendee’s attorneys fees incurred in pursuing his remedies under the ordinance.

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).

Powers of attorney are written authorizations to represent or act on another person’s behalf.  The person granting the authorization is the principal and the person to whom authorization is granted is the agent.  A standard power of attorney gives the agent the authority to act immediately and identifies the specific powers that the agent may exercise.  In the case of springing powers of attorney, the document will identify the triggering event that gives the agent the authority to act at some point in the future.

These documents can be immensely useful for a principal suffering from an incapacity, which is to say, an individual who: (1) has an impaired ability to receive and evaluate information, (2) is missing, (3) is detained, be it in the penal system or otherwise, or (4) is outside of the United States and unable to return.  Notwithstanding the cause of the principal’s incapacity, the agent (if given the relevant authority in the power of attorney) may make financial decisions for the principal, purchase or sell property on behalf of the principal, make healthcare decisions, etc.  All of those actions, however, are prevented when the relevant bank, title agency, or healthcare provider wrongfully rejects a lawful power of attorney.

Lawful powers of attorney are often rejected for inane reasons including preparing the power of attorney more than six months prior to the date that the agent presents it or naming a second or successor agent.  Responding to the concerns of the constituency, members of the Ohio House of Representatives recently sponsored House Bill (H.B.) No. 446, which operates to remedy the all-too-common practice of rejecting lawful powers of attorney.  The bill does not alter language in the Ohio Revised Code, but rather, it adds the following to Chapter 1337:

(A)       As used in this section, “acknowledged” means verified before a notary public or other individual authorized to take acknowledgements.

(B)       A person shall not refuse to accept an acknowledged power of attorney for a transaction, or require an additional or different form of power of attorney for any authority granted in a statutory form power of attorney, unless one of the following applies:

  • The person has actual knowledge of the termination of the agent’s authority or of the power of attorney.
  • The person in good faith believes that the transaction is outside the scope of the authority granted to the agent in the power of attorney.
  • The person in good faith believes that the power of attorney is not valid.

(C)       A person that fails to comply with this section is subject to both of the following:

  • A court order mandating the acceptance of the power of attorney;
  • Liability for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in any action or proceeding that confirms the validity of the power of attorney or mandates acceptance of the power of attorney.

On January 16, 2018, the Ohio House of Representatives referred H.B. 446 to the Civil Justice Committee, which is where the bill remains today.  The Committee held its first hearing regarding the same on January 24, 2018.

The primary sponsors of the bill are Rep. William Seitz (R) and Rep. John Rogers (D).  The co-sponsors are Rep. Nickie Antonio (D), Rep. John Becker (R), Rep. John Boccieri (D), Rep. Nicholas Celebrezze (D), Rep. Teresa Fedor (D), Rep. Bernadine Kent (D), Rep. Michael Sheehy (D), and Rep. Kent Smith (D).

Fox19 is reporting today that the City of Cincinnati is considering legislation to regulate Air BNB rental units in the City of Cincinnati.  Features of the proposed ordinance:

  • it would regulate short term rentals of entire dwelling units for periods of 30 days or less at a time.
  • Rentals for each unit would be limited to 90 days out of any calendar year.
  • Unit owners would have to license each unit and renew the license every year.
  • Unit owners would have to submit to annual zoning, building, safety, and housing code inspections.
  • Unit owners would have to have liability insurance on the property,
  • Unit owners would be required to pay taxes on the rental income, including a transient occupancy tax.

The purposes for the ordinance  from the Fox19 are:

  • to reduce the negative impact of short term rentals
  • to protect residential tenants who otherwise would be evicted to allow for conversion of their  units for AirBNB occupants
  • to keep AirBNB renters safer.

Read the Fox19 article here.

Imagine you are trying to sell a piece of property, but no one is making any offers.  That is, until a prospective purchaser offers to buy the property on a land installment contract.  You can hardly contain your relief at being able to move on, so you sign the contract without understanding some of the terms, or even what a land installment contract is.  That leads to the questions, “What did I just sign” and “Did I agree to something I shouldn’t have?”

A land installment contract (also known as an installment contract or a land contract) is an agreement between a seller (vendor) of real property and a buyer (vendee), pursuant to which the vendor agrees to sell real property after the vendee pays a series of installments and other obligations set forth in the land installment contract (such as payment of real estate taxes and assessments, utilities, etc.) over a set period of time.  Essentially, the vendor is acting as a lender in the transaction by allowing the buyer to make a series of small payments not unlike a mortgage payment.  From a legal perspective, the vendor is the legal title holder and the real estate and the vendee is the equitable owner of the property.

Selling on a land installment contract can be beneficial when: (i) the vendor has unsuccessfully listed their property on the market for a long period of time, (ii) the vendor does not need the equity from their property in order to pursue the purchase of their next piece of property, or (iii) a prospective purchaser is having a difficult time obtaining traditional financing (in which case a sizable down payment is preferential).

In addition to the standard provisions you need to watch out for (e.g., the purchase price, the closing date, inspection terms, etc.) there are clauses that can be problematic for the selling party.  One such clause is the vendee’s right to make repairs of undisclosed items on the property, and then deduct the cost of such repairs from the final payment.  That clause could sound as innocuous as something like this:

In the event that the vendors fail to pay any amounts due and owing hereunder, the vendees may pay such amount at buyers’ complete and sole discretion, and thereafter deduct the amount of such payment from the final payment.

On its face, this clause doesn’t sound problematic, but when coupled with other clauses in the land installment contract, such as the following, it becomes an issue:

In the event that any representation or warranty of vendors is false, vendees shall have the right, at their absolute discretion, to either: (i) rescind this agreement and refund all amounts paid under the same or (ii) reduce the final payment owed to vendors for any and all losses, liabilities, costs, or expenses associated with vendors’ false representation or warranty; provided, however, that no reduction may occur for losses, liabilities, costs, or expenses associated with any replacement, maintenance or repair of an item on the property that was conspicuously disclosed to vendees.

Essentially, this gives the vendee the power to make repairs on any item on the property that is in need of repair, which need is at the vendee’s absolute discretion.  The scrupulous vendee may elect to fix the most minor damage, regardless of the cost, because the cost will be deducted from the final payment and the vendee won’t lose any money.  Instead, the vendee obtains all of the benefit, and the cost for such benefit will come straight from the vendor’s pocket.

Ultimately, if your property has been on the market for a long period of time and a prospective vendee offers you a land installment contract, you can breathe your sigh of relief, but do not sign the land installment contract until you are absolutely sure you understand the terms contained therein.  It is highly recommended that you seek legal counsel to represent your interests prior to entering into the land installment contract.

Contact Finney Law Firm to see how we can help you with your real estate needs and transactions.

The day many of us had anticipated in real estate transactions has arrived: Electronic filing of real estate documents.

Hamilton County Auditor Dusty Rhodes, Hamilton County Recorder Norbert Nadel and Hamilton County Engineer Ted Hubbard have collaborated to allow — starting Wednesday, February 7, 2018 — for recording of deeds and other instruments conveying property ownership to be filed completely online using the web portal at Simplifile.com.

Warren County has allowed for electronic recording for some time.

  • The Hamilton County Recorder’s Office has a instruction guides here and here.
  • Warren County’s information is here.

The remarkable advancement eliminates the need for a trip to the auditor’s and recorder’s offices to file a broad variety of recorded real estate instruments.

For more information, contact Auditor Rhodes’ office at 513.946.4235.

Through the course of our representation of clients, they often encounter zoning codes which are outdated and properties that are non-conforming, often in vibrant flourishing neighborhoods.  This was the case for one client, who desired to seek a use variance for a property in Evanston, a stone’s throw from the burgeoning Walnut Hills neighborhood.

The challenge

In this case, the clients desired to purchase a block construction building that was zoned Residential Mixed Use and convert the same into an artisanal cheese making facility and retail store/tasting room. This building had previously been operated as a medical building and was constructed prior to implementation of the current Zoning Code. As a result, an 8,334 square foot block building sat vacant and unused, a blight to its community because of zoning that relegated it to Residential Mixed Use. As a result, we were retained to pursue a use variance on their behalf and assist them in their endeavors to “put Cincinnati cheese on the map and to begin that dream in the Evanston neighborhood.”

Variances under Cincinnati Municipal Code

Under §1445-15 of the Cincinnati Zoning Code a variance from the requirements of the Cincinnati Zoning Code can be granted, provided the condition giving rise to the request for the variance was not created by the current or prior owner.  In addition, a variance can be granted owing to special conditions affecting the property, where application of the Zoning Code would be unreasonable and result in practical difficulties. Finally, consideration is given as to whether the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by owners of neighboring properties.

Showing of unnecessary hardship

In addition to these factors, under §1445-16 of the Code, no variance can be granted unless the applicant demonstrates it will suffer unnecessary hardship if strict compliance with the terms of the Code is required. Hardship is demonstrated by the following factors: (a) the property cannot be put to any economically viable use under any of the permitted uses in the zoning district;  (b) the variance requested stems from a condition that is unique to the property at issue and not ordinarily found in the same zone or district; (c) the hardship condition is not created by actions of the applicant; (d) the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents; (e) the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the community character, public health, safety or general welfare; (f) the variance will be consistent with the general spirit and intent of the Zoning Code; and (g) the variance sought is the minimum that will afford relief to the applicant.

“In The Public Interest”

Finally, in order to obtain a use variance, an applicant must show the proposed variance “is in the public interest.” The factors considered under §1445-13 of the Code include: present zoning, community guidelines and plans, existing traffic, buffering, landscaping, hours of operation, neighborhood compatibility, proposed zoning amendments, consideration of adverse effects, the elimination of blight, economic benefit, job creation, effect upon tax valuations, and private and public benefits.

The wasted potential of a long-vacant property

In our clients zoning matter, an existing structure which did not conform to the Code had sat vacant for five years or more.  The zoning needs of the Property were unique to it and the hardship had not been created by the owner of the Property. Its impact on the immediate neighborhood as a vacant and blighted building were adverse, contributing nothing to the neighborhood, and detracting greatly from the same.

Making a difference for our client

Our clients were able to obtain a use variance and now that vacant building has been transformed into a cheese making facility and retail store/tasting room that will further transform this already bustling community.

Read more about their story here.

Ohio imposes fees on the conveyance of real estate, and generally determines the value of real property based upon the sale price when the property is sold. One means of avoiding the conveyance fee and reporting the sale price is the use of a “LLC Loophole.”

The LLC Loophole is a means of conveying title to real property using an LLC as an intermediary, rather than transferring title directly from the seller to the buyer. A property owner transfers title to real estate to an LLC that she owns, and then sells the LLC itself to the buyer. One benefit of  this conveyance is that no conveyance fee is paid, and the auditor is not alerted to the sale price.

Consider this illustration:

Property owner owns a strip mall valued by the auditor at $500,000. She has received an offer to buy the property for $750,000, but the buyer wants to avoid the publicity of reporting the sale through a conveyance form and the automatic increase in tax value that would come by simply buying the property directly from the property owner. So, the property owner sets up a new limited liability company, Strip Mall, LLC; conveys title to the property to Strip Mall, LLC; and then sells her 100% ownership interest in Strip Mall, LLC to the buyer for $750,000. The only filing with the county auditor is the conveyance fee showing a fee exempt transfer from the property owner to the LLC. No one is alerted that the buyer now owns the strip mall or that it was valued at $750,000 in an arm’s length transaction.

Under the proposed law, when the property owner sells her ownership interest in the LLC, she would have to report that sale to the auditor as if she had sold the real estate directly to the buyer. At that point, the auditor would assess a conveyance fee, and the real estate would be taxed at the sale price. The proposed bill would require the reporting and payment of taxes whenever any interest in an LLC or other entity that owns real estate (directly or indirectly) takes place.

To be clear, there is nothing unlawful about using LLCs in property transfers, and it is a perfectly legitimate method for conveying real estate.

We expect that public school boards in particular, as well as other property tax funded organizations will lobby in support of this legislation; and that it will find opposition from real estate investors and small government advocates generally. Whether it is this particular bill or another future proposal, the LLC Loophole will be facing continued scrutiny and efforts to impose conveyance fees and determine the purchase price.

The Legislative Services Commission’s analysis and the bill text are below.

Finney Law Firm will be keeping an eye on this bill as it works through the Ohio Legislature.

[scribd id=370187443 key=key-6s2g2qtMWnOArPxcnU1w mode=scroll]