When banks and other lenders make a loan for real estate financing, they typically take back from the borrow a promissory note (promising to re-pay the sums borrowed) and a mortgage against the real estate financed (securing the payment of the loan).
And under that scenario, even a borrower in default has certain rights as against the lender.
First, there is a statutory right of redemption of the property in the foreclosure process under O.R.C. Section 2329.33:
…in sales of real estate on execution or order of sale, at any time before the confirmation thereof, the debtor may redeem it from sale by depositing in the hands of the clerk of the court of common pleas to which such execution or order is returnable, the amount of the judgment or decree upon which such lands were sold, with all costs, including poundage, and interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum on the purchase money from the day of sale to the time of such deposit, except where the judgment creditor is the purchaser, the interest at such rate on the excess above the judgment creditor’s claim. The court of common pleas thereupon shall make an order setting aside such sale, and apply the deposit to the payment of such judgment or decree and costs, and award such interest to the purchaser, who shall receive from the officer making the sale the purchase money paid by the purchaser, and the interest from the clerk. …
Second, the borrower has the right to the net proceeds from the foreclosure sale beyond the court costs and the amount due to the lender (i.e., any built-up equity in the property belongs to the borrower).
Finney Law Firm alleges in a recent class action complaint that Cincinnati companies Build Realty, Inc., Edgar Construction LLC, and certain investors associated with them have created a tremendously complicated scheme to impermissibly attempt to deprive a broad group of real estate investors of these statutory rights in the lender/borrower relationship.
From the Complaint:
This case involves a complex business scheme where Defendant Build Realty, Inc. and Defendant Edgar Construction LLC solicit investors to purchase and improve real property from/through them under a fraudulent structure, prohibited by Ohio law. To effectuate this transaction, Edgar Construction, LLC (“Edgar Construction”), purchases certain real property from a third party, then immediately resells the property at a higher price to itself as trustee of a trust under which the investor is the beneficiary. Edgar Construction’s affiliated entity, Build Realty, Inc. (“Build Realty”) agrees to lend the investor the after–renovation-value of the property, including the higher purchase price and an additional amount for improvements (held in escrow). As part of this transaction, the investor, Build Realty, and/or Edgar Construction simultaneously execute numerous agreements, under which the investor is obligated as a mortgagor and borrower on a note for the amount loaned by Build Realty. One of the documents signed during this transaction also purports to allow Defendants to reclaim the property, extinguishing the investors’ rights therein, upon any default and without the opportunity for cure or any subsequent foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure.
The Ohio Supreme Court and courts throughout the state have recognized the structure of the Transaction as an improper clog on the right to redemption. Additionally, the Transaction is fraudulent, void for unconscionability and as against public policy, and involves numerous breaches of the fiduciary duties owed to the investors (which are the beneficiaries of the trusts). This Transaction effectively allows Defendants to profit at the expense of their investors/beneficiaries, including (i) the retention of the down payments paid on the properties, (ii) the difference in the purchase price that Edgar Construction paid and the purchase price for the conveyance from Edgar Construction to Edgar Construction, as trustee, and (iii) any foreclosure proceeds the investor(s) would have realized.
The Class Action Complaint seeks compensatory damages and disgorgement of profits, punitive damages and a declaration that such transactions by these defendants are impermissible under Ohio law.
For more information on this suit, contact attorney Casey Taylor at (513) 943-5673 or [email protected].
Our firm has previously written on the creative ways one can shield his or her personal assets through the corporate or limited liability structure. As noted in that entry (Link Here), “Ohio courts and courts throughout the nation have been pretty vigilant in protecting the corporate veil of owners of corporations and limited liability companies.” However, this general principle is not without a couple of narrowly drawn exceptions, explored below.
Formation of LLCs
The Finney Law Firm deals regularly with clients and other parties that are organized as limited liability companies (“LLCs”) or corporations. After all, these entities are fairly simple to create – one must simply fill out an online form or two, submit a relatively small fee to the Secretary of State, and they are then able to transact business without fear of personal liability, right? Maybe not.
The powerful “corporate veil” protection of an LLC
Generally, an LLC member cannot be held personally liable for the torts or contractual obligations of the LLC solely by virtue of his or her membership in the LLC. City of Lakewood v. Ramirez, 2014-Ohio-1075, ¶ 11 (8th Dist. 2014). Thus, if an LLC defaults on its obligations under a contract, an adverse party cannot obtain judgment against the LLC members’ or managers’ personal assets. It is for this reason, along with its ease of formation, that the LLC structure is so desirable to many. And, most of the time, it succeeds in its purpose of precluding judgment against the members’ personal assets.
Narrow exceptions
However, there are two sets of circumstances under which the limited liability structure does not shield members from personal liability.
1. Piercing the corporate veil
The first is where the court deems it proper to “pierce the corporate veil,” thereby removing that protection of limited liability.
[I]n order to pierce the corporate veil and impose personal liability upon [members or managers], the person seeking to pierce the corporate veil must show that: (1) those to be held liable hold such complete control over the corporation that the corporation has no separate mind, will, or existence of its own; (2) those to be held liable exercise control over the corporation in such a manner as to commit fraud or an illegal act against the person seeking to disregard the corporate entity; and (3) injury or unjust loss resulted to the plaintiff from such control and wrong.
Stewart v. R.A. Eberts Co., 2009-Ohio-4418, ¶ 16 (4th Dist. 2009), citing Belvedere Condominium Unit Owners’ Ass’n v. R.E. Roark Cos., 67 Ohio St. 3d 274, ¶ 3 of the syllabus, 617 N.E.2d 1075 (1993). The idea behind piercing the corporate veil is that there is so little separation between the individual and the LLC, that they can almost be considered “alter-egos” such that it is not unreasonable to hold the member or manager of the LLC personally liable for the debts, obligations, and/or liabilities of the LLC.
2. Member’s own acts, ommisions or fraud
The second instance where a member can be held personally liable notwithstanding the limited liability structure is where the members’ own acts or omissions constitute fraud. R.C. 1705.48; See alsoDeitrick v. Am. Mortg. Solutions, Inc., 2007-Ohio-839, ¶ 19 (10th Dist. 2007) (finding that a “corporate officer can be individually liable in tort if the promises contained in the contract are fraudulent” and “even if he commits the fraud while in the course of his corporate duties”); Stewart, at ¶ 30 (“[N]either the corporate shield, nor a shield of limited liability insulates a wrongdoer from liability for his or her own tortious acts.”). Additionally, this second instance is not contingent upon the first (i.e., a litigant who seeks to hold an LLC member personally liable for the member’s own fraud need not first pierce the corporate veil in order to do so). Yo-Can, Inc. v. Yogurt Exch., 149 Ohio App. 3d 513, 527 (7th Dist. 2002) (“[P]laintiffs need not pierce the corporate veil to hold individuals liable who allegedly personally commit fraud.”).
Conclusion
Thus, while the LLC or corporate structure are very successful at providing owners/members with a great deal of protection the overwhelming majority of the time, one shouldn’t make the mistake of thinking his or her personal assets are entirely immune regardless of the circumstances.
How do I obtain an Ohio commercial real estate broker lien?
Attorney Casey Taylor
First, let’s be clear: There is no lien right for real estate brokers for property consisting solely of between one and four residential units. (O.R.C §§1311.85 and .86).
However, licensed real estate brokers dohave lien rights in transactions involving commercial properties, i.e., anything other than between one and four residential units. (O.R.C §§1311.86).
The lien rights extend to brokerage contracts for the provision of services for selling, purchasing, and leasing. (O.R.C §§1311..86(A) and (B)). They do not appear to cover the provision of property management services.
What is a lien?
In one sense, a lien does not get you anything more than the contract rights you already have: You have a signed listing agreement, you have earned your commission, you can sue in a court of competent jurisdiction, and you can thus get paid the amount of money you are owed.
But as a practical matter, lien rights are tremendously powerful in “turning the tables” on a property owner, giving quick, inexpensive and powerful leverage to the Realtor to resolve a commission dispute.
Why is a lien important?
Leverage often is the “whole ballgame.” So often, (a) debtors will avoid debts they clearly owe just because they can, for purposes of the time-value of money (by delaying the payment, they can use your money in the interim) and (b) the reality is that most creditors will not go to the trouble and expense of hiring and paying an attorney to collect the sums owed to them.
Litigation can cost as little as $20,000 per case, up to hundreds of thousands of dollars for a vigorously-contested action. So, the question for a Realtor claiming a commission is: Can I “check” or “checkmate” a property owner (seller or landlord) into recognizing, dealing with and paying my claim without the two years and tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees needed to vindicate that right?
A lien is a powerful tool — it encumbers real property
A lien is an encumbrance on real property. In most cases, real property encumbrances have the same priority of the order of filing, i.e., the first-filed is paid first from the sale proceeds, the second, second and so forth. (Ohio mechanics liens are the major exception to this rule, dating back to the date of first work on a project.)
This gives the lien holder two distinct advantages, many times powerful advantages: (a) their claim is secured against the real estate (i.e., the owner cannot further squander the equity in the property by a sale or mortgage) (b) the claimant has placed a cloud on the title with what may still be a disputed claim, effectively preventing the owner from selling or mortgaging the asset until the earlier of (i) the statutory expiration of the lien or (ii) the judicial disposition of the claim and the lien rights.
Thus, as a practical matter if the property owner wants to sell his property or take out a new mortgage or refinance an existing mortgage, he will have to “deal with” the Realtor’s claims before doing so.
A broker’s lien is unilateral — it does not require the owner’s signature or consent
Contrary to what many clients ask of us in a simple contract or tort claim (“please lien their property”), in most circumstances a lien cannot be placed against real property until either (a) the owner signs a voluntary instrument such as a mortgage or (b) the conclusion of litigation, which usually takes years. In the meantime, a defendant can sell and mortgage the property, or otherwise encumber it, and then squander the asset without concern for the plaintiff’s claims. (This is constrained by concerns about fraudulent conveyance issues that will be discussed in another blog entry later.)
The right to place a unilateral lien against real estate is very narrow, being limited to government liens (such as tax liens, assessments, environmental liens, etc.) and mechanics liens (for work done on real property and materials delivered to real property for incorporation therein).
Commercial brokerage lien rights
O.R.C. §1311.86 provides such unilateral lien rights for the collection of a commission in commercial transactions in specific circumstances set forth in the statute. Being a unilateral filing, means that the Realtor claiming the lien simply signs and files a piece of paper in the Hamilton County Recorder’s office. It does not require a signature (on the lien filing) of the property owner.
Statutory requirements
Because the lien arises from the statute, strict compliance with the statutory mandates will be required. F. W. Winstel Co. v. Johnston, 103 Ohio App. 525, Paragraph 1 of the Syllabus (1st Dist. 1957). These are set forth in O.R.C. §1311.86:
It is for written brokerage contracts only (O.R.C. §1311.86(A) and (B)).
It is for “for services related to selling, leasing, or conveying any interest in commercial real estate” (O.R.C. §1311.86(A)) and “for services related to purchasing any interest in commercial real estate.” (O.R.C. §1311.86(B)).
“The lien is effective only if the contract for services is in writing and is signed by the broker or the broker’s agent and the owner of the lien property or the owner’s agent.” (O.R.C. §1311.86(A) and (B)).
The lien is for the broker only, not his salespersons. (O.R.C. §1311.86(C)(1).
The lien amount is either the brokerage commission due, or if due in installments only that portion due on conveyance. (O.R.C. §1311.86(C)(2) but in the case of commercial leasing, (O.R.C. §1311.86(C)(3).
Only the property subject to the brokerage agreement can be liened. ((O.R.C §§86(C)(5)).
Lien contents
To perfect a lien, the following steps must be followed:
The claimant must prepare, sign and have acknowledged (notarized) an affidavit containing each of the following: (a) name of the broker who has the lien, (b) the name of the owner of the lien property, (c) a legal description of the lien property, (d) the amount for which the lien is claimed, (e) the date and a summary of the written contract on which the lien is based, and the real estate license number of the broker. R.C. 1311.87(B)(2).
Additionally, the lien affidavit must state that the information contained in the affidavit is true and accurate to the knowledge of the broker. Id.
Lien deadlines
The timeframes within which a commercial broker’s lien must be filed are:
For a sale of liened, the Affidavit must be recorded prior to the conveyance of the property. R.C. 1311.86 (B)(3).
For a purchase of liened property the Affidavit must be recorded within ninety days after the conveyance of the property. R.C. 1311.86 (B)(4).
For liens based upon a leasing commission, the Affidavit must be recorded within ninety days after a default by the owner in payment. R.C. 1311.86 (B)(5).
Notice to property owner
One other requirement not to overlook: “On the day the lien affidavit is recorded, the broker shall provide a copy of the lien affidavit to the owner of the lien property and, where a contract for the sale or other conveyance of the lien property has been entered into, to the prospective transferee, where known, either by personal delivery or by certified mail, return receipt requested. O.R.C. 1311.86 (B)(6).
Be careful — “Slander of title” claims can be nasty
If one files a lien against real property that is later determine to have been in bad faith, the lien claimant can find himself the target of a suit for a cause of action known as “slander of title.” Slander of title is the tort of impairing title to someone’s real estate without a reasonable basis therefor. McClure v. Fischer Attached Homes, 2007-Ohio-7259, ¶ 21, 882 N.E.2d 61 (Clermont Co. C.P. 2007), citing Green v. Lemarr, 139 Ohio App. 3d 414, 433 (2d Dist. 2000).
The really bad part of a slander of title claim is that it can include an award to the property owner of an award of his attorneys fees and a punitive damages amount. Additionally, the commercial brokerage lien statute specifically allows for the prevailing party to recover its attorney’s fees. O.R.C. 1311.88(C) (“[A] court may assess the nonprevailing parties with costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by the prevailing parties.”). However, in cases involving general slander of title claims (i.e., outside of the commercial brokerage lien context), the attorney’s fees have been limited to the those “necessary to counteract a disparaging publication,” and did not include those incurred in prosecuting the slander of title. Cuspide Props. v. Earl Mech. Servs., 2015-Ohio-5019, ¶ 40 (6th Dist. 2015).
Thus, we recommend moving forward with the filing of an affidavit for a commercial broker’s lien cautiously, only where the broker is certain of the merits of his position and even then still willing to withstand the possible claim for slander of title from an owner.
Conclusion
The Finney Law Firm is privileged to have many real estate brokerage clients, including commercial Realtors. The commercial lien right is a very powerful one, and one that we think is under-utilized in commission disputes.
Consider one of our attorneys to assist you in such a dispute, including the use of the right to a commercial lien.
Frequently, clients desire to lend money, seller-finance the sale of their business or other asset, buy and then lease out a building, or engage in some other business transaction because they are motivated by favorable business terms the transaction provides on its surface: A high rate of interest, a good return under a lease, or a more promising sale price than otherwise the seller would obtain, for example.
This entry asks a prospective private lender to think twice about the risks associated with this activity and to take as many steps to protect himself as possible under the circumstances.
Who is the “lender” and who is the “borrower”
For purposes of this entry, there are many circumstances in which a party is a “lender” and another is the “borrower.”
Obviously, a simple monetary loan in which there is a lender and borrower is one such transaction.
Another occurs where an investor either owns a building and desires to rent it, or purchases one for leasing purposes. In addition, as a part of a leasehold transaction, the landlord may be putting into the premises significant sums in “tenant buildout costs.” Here, the renter is “using” the landlord’s money, his credit, and his asset, in exchange for monthly (read: deferred) payments. This is a form of “loan.”
When a seller is selling his busines, his building or another asset, and does anything other than take back 100% of the purchase price at the time of conveyance, he is a “lender.” (And the worse situation is where the seller is taking a subordinate position to a lender who gets a first mortgage or other lien on the assets acquired. In such situation, the liklihood of the seller getting his “loaned” funds is significantly impaired, and the chance of default significantly higher.)
Even co-signing a loan or a lease, or guaranteeing the debt of another, is “lending” your credit to the co-borrower.
Four important factors to consider
But consider these factors before “lending” your money, your asset, and your credit to a third party:
First, ask yourself: “Why can’t this buyer get conventional financing?” Banks are in the business of assessing and taking the risks associated with lending. If this “borrower” does not qualify for a bank loan, why should you be in the business of being a lender? Have you really fully assessed the risks of lending to this “borrower.”
Banks know experientially and actuarially the “warning signs” that predict loan defaults. Among these are an inability to come up with an adequate down payment, a poor credit score, a history of litigation, and other warning signs. I spoke with one lender recently, and they said they will never lend to people who fail to pay their taxes — ever.
Second, in my experience, a buyer of an asset is much more likely to raise defenses and counterclaims against a seller than the buyer would be able to as against a third party lender: Fraud in the inducement of the sale, property defects, misrepresentations in the business accounts, and simple contract breach. Buyers will raise any and every excuse and defense against paying money they owe.
Third, the more desperate the “borrower” is, the more likely he is to agree to generous transaction terms: a high rate of interest, a high sale price, or some other above-market remuneration. And — I say this based on experience — borrowers who have no intention and no ability to pay back the “loan” are the most willing to agree to generous lending terms.
Fourth, if you are going to leap (into the position of being a lender), at the very least look first: do the kind of due diligence that a lender would — a credit check, a background check, reference checks, and a simple check of court clerks sites and bankrupcy court history for obvious signs of fiscal distress.
The ABCs of improving your position as a lender
So, you have made the decision to “lend.” What steps can you take to improve your position and increase the liklihood of getting your money paid back, with interest?
A. Certainly ask for a personal guarantee of any “loan” to a corporate entity. Accepting simply a corporate signature, whether of a note maker, a tenant or the buyer of an asset, is asking for trouble, unless that company’s creditworthiness has been thoroughly ascertained
B. Don’t be shy about asking for the personal guarantee of the principal’s (or principals’) wife (or wives). If the borrower is earnest about putting their name, their assets and their creditworthiness behind a promise, and they have asked you to extend credit to them — then shouldn’t their wife also stand behind the obligation? Stating it differently, the most common and most obvious dodge of debtors avoiding their creditors is to place their assets in the name of their wife. Don’t let them avoid their obligations to you so easily.
C. Are there third parties who can guarantee the debt? A business partner? A parent? Who is interested in the success of this borrower’s business such that they would be willing to stand behind its obligations?
D. Look for assets to lien. Does the “borrower” (or his wife) own a house, stocks, jewelry, accounts receiveable, or equipment or inventory in their business? Are those assets presently free from any first lien against them? If so, and if the borrower is earnest about paying back your debt, then he should not have qualms with providing a security interest against those assets to stand behind the loan. (Note: Please consult an attorney about how to properly take a lien in various assets; it can be tricky.)
E. Would some patience or a reduced price yield either a cash buyer or enable the buyer you have to go and get a bank or other third party loan? If so, it may be wise to take one of those options.
Conclusion
Lending is an ultra-hazardous activity that should not be undertaken lightly.
There are exceptions where the seller’s main motivation is not necessarily getting payback of the loan: a parent helping a child; a business or building owner who is getting a great sale price for the asset, and perhaps much of it in cash; or simply a weak market with few buyers. And so long as our clients enter into a transaction understanding the risks of being a “lender,” we are fine with that decision.
But we see many clients seduced by more favorable terms from a borrower or seller-financed buyer who desperately needs their cash versus a stingier cash buyer.
Our suggestion:Think about taking the money and running instead.
The risks inherent in being a lender is why they say: “Cash is king.”
In a case that was previously discussed here, the Ohio Supreme Court issued an important ruling in a real estate valuation case, Terraza 8, LLC v. Franklin County Board of Revision, 2015-2063, yesterday.
R.C. 5713.03 was amended in 2012 – allowing that the auditor may consider a recent sale price as the true value of real estate rather than shall, and requiring that the property be valued “as if unencumbered.”
Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Fischer agreed with the property owner that recent changes to R.C. 5713.03 mean that County Auditors are no longer required to adopt a recent sale price as the true value of real estate, and that the purchase price in sale and lease back transactions can be rebutted by a showing that the sale price does not reflect the value of unencumbered fee-simple estate. The decision is available online here.
In commercial tenant space, whether office, warehouse, manufacturing or retail, landlords typically want three-, five- or seven-year lease terms. And this is reasonable given the cost of tenant build-out, Realtor commissions and the demands of their mortgage lenders. It also is relatively standard in the marketplace.
However, a tenant will rightfully reason that they can’t anticipate their space needs for a year much less over a seven-year period of time. The company might need to relocate, be bought out or go out of business, the principal could die or become disabled, or the tenant’s business model could change substantially.
One concession I recommend that tenants request in a commercial lease is an early-termination option. By having the right to walk away from a lease, it gives enormous flexibility and power to a tenant. Recently, a landlord explained to me that he is glad to offer this tenant concession.
Typically, a termination option is not free. Here are typical issues a landlord will want to discuss:
The lease termination option might not kick in until some period into the lease, say after the first year.
The landlord will want generous advance notice provisions, say three to six months to allow him to advertise and market the premises for re-letting to a new tenant.
An early termination fee of anywhere from three months to one year of base rent and CAM charges.
A reimbursement of Realtor fees paid (many times paid up front, but calculated on the entire lease term value).
A reimbursement of tenant improvement costs.
So often I am consulted after the fact by a tenant who wants “out” of their lease on a document we were not asked to help negotiate, and the tenant is in a real spot. Sometimes in that circumstance the landlord is digging in his heels wanting the full rent and CAM amounts for the entire lease period — and they may well be entitled to that.
But if only the tenant had asked for this simple concession on the front end — when he had negotiating power — his life would be simpler and his finances richer.
For both landlords and tenants, there is curious and confusing phraseology in many if not most commercial leases relative to the payment of rent:
Rent will be paid without any set-off, counterclaim, deduction or recoupment whatsoever.
That sounds like (and is) a lot of legalese, but what does that mean?
It is, in fact, an important provision of commercial leases. What it means is simply that rent is due from the tenant without delay or reduction based upon claimed breaches of the lease by landlord. Thus, if the tenant thinks he has defenses to the payment of rent, or claims against the landlord, he must bring them in a separate court action and not use the tactic of offsetting rent — and delaying an eviction — based upon meritorious or frivolous claims of landlord breach.
The provision is not unnecessarily unfair to one side or the other. Rather, it is a business term for negotiation between the parties.
From a landlord’s perspective, he is surrendering possession of the Premises to tenant and tenant should, month in and month out, pay him for that possession. If the tenant is “starving” the landlord of rent, while the landlord has to pay his mortgage, taxes, maintenance and insurance, it is a painful and stacked deck against the landlord. Further, while each month the tenant is getting the benefit of the bargain by occupying the premises, the tenant may prove uncollectible after months or years of litigation. Further, landlord does not want to find himself in the position of pursuing rent — all the way through a trial — if the defenses of the tenant are entirely fictitious and manufactured just to buy time against an eviction for a rent default.
From the tenant’s perspective, if the landlord has made his building unoccupiable by severely burdensome practices — noise, dust, odors, lack of access or parking, non-operational elevators, bugs, vagrants, etc. — then why should he tender payment every month only to have to litigate in a separate forum to get some or all of that money back? Further, a landlord can similarly bleed a tenant dry by extracting rent during the tenancy while failing to maintain his building. And a landlord may prove judgment-proof as well at the end of litigation.
As a result of the weighing of the interests of the landlord and the tenant, there could be compromise language to sometimes standard form lease “no offset” language — for extreme circumstances that “put a tenant out of business.” But prying that door open even slightly to give the tenant an “argument” against eviction could lead to months or years of costly litigation against a tenant who otherwise would be paying rent monthly.
# # #
Our firm practices extensively in the area of commercial lease drafting and litigation to enforce the same in Ohio and Kentucky. We invite you to use our professionals to assist you with your investment properties. Isaac Heintz leads our practice as it relates to commercial lease drafting and Brad Gibson heads our litigation group for its enforcement or defense.
As we have grown, the vision of the Finney Law Firm is sharpening for our clients and the public: A broad array of services offered in one firm, each practice area delivered in a quality fashion.
At our core, we are a real estate firm, with experienced transactional attorneys, a title insurance company that insures residential and commercial titles, and commercial litigators who can address virtually every aspect of disputes relating to real estate: Eviction, foreclosure, title disputes, easement disputes, construction disputes and mechanics lien claims, as well as complex real estate litigation.
Our litigators are well-known for our public interest practice — handing legislative and regulatory matters aggressively, confronting government officials who would illegally interfere with their life, their business and their fortune. Three times we have ascended to the U.S. Supreme Court, and three times we won the relief we sought with 9-0 victories there. We apply this same sophistication and vigor to commercial litigation, personal injury, wrongful death and medical malpractice matters.
Finally, we are proud to recently have expanded our litigation services to include labor and employment law with experienced litigator Stephen Imm.
When a client asks “do you do that,” I am proud to respond “yes, and we do it well. Let me introduce you to …..”
Let us know how we we can help with your business or personal opportunity or challenge. It is with you in mind that we have assembled this team of quality practitioners.
We are excited to announce that Finney Law Firm attorneys Isaac T. Heintz and W.Z. “Dylan” Sizemore will present “Five Pillars of Success” to the Greater Cincinnati Home Builders Association on Wednesday, April 20th from 11:30 AM to 12:30 PM.
HBA members and non-members are invited, but non-members (“Future members”) must pay $25 to attend.
The seminar addresses the key steps that business owners should take in establishing and growing their businesses to maximize returns and minimize exposure to liabilities. The presenters are knowledgeable and experienced business and real estate attorneys.
The Cincinnati Home Builders Association is a private organization of home builders and their vendors that is entrepreneurial and well-led. They actively participate in civic matters of critical concern for the local economy and provide important educational opportunities for their members. Finney Law Firm is proud to be a member.
A flyer with the details of the event is linked here. The location of the presentation is The Tile Shop, 3095 Disney Street Cincinnati, OH 45209.
Register online to attend this program. Reservations are required.
All residential and commercial users of electric generation service from Duke Energy Corp. and/or Cinergy Corp. from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2008 are eligible for a rebate under a class action effectuated in the case Williams v. Duke Energy. For residential users, the rebate will range from $40 to $400. For commercial users the rebate is unlimited in size.
As described to me by one of the attorneys for the Plaintiffs, the settlement — nearly $81 million in all — means “real money,” especially for larger commercial users. Your business should not miss this opportunity, and it is even worthwhile for residential users to avail themselves of this windfall.
However, in order to obtain a refund, consumers must complete and submit a form on-line or on paper by April 13, 2016.
The on-line form is quick and simple. It should take fewer than five minutes to complete. We strongly recommend that all of our eligible clients log onto http://dukeclassaction.com and complete the form. I just did it for my own residence, and it was super-quick and super-simple.
