It can be easy to “talk the talk,” but much harder to “walk the walk” in matters, both personal and professional.

Our commitment at the Finney Law Firm and Ivy Pointe TItle, every day in every matter entrusted to us, is to place in to action the values we have embraced: 

  • Integrity: We must act properly in everything we do;
  • Accountability: We must meet our commitments;
  • Communication: We must inform others of performance of our commitments; and
  • Excellence: We must consistently deliver quality legal services.

This requires a focus, and a commitment, from each of our professionals to put these principles into action in our interactions with our clients, the Courts and other government officials, opposing parties and counsel, and the general public.

You can read more about our firm’s vision and values here.

If you share these values, please allow us to put our values into action for you!

This article is the eighth in a series on new construction.  The contents of this series of articles apply to commercial as well as residential projects.

This blog entry addresses documenting change orders in new construction projects, commercial and residential.  But before we get there, let’s re-visit the fundamentals of new construction contracting.

As is set forth in this prior blog entry:

the starting point is a clear starting point.  At the time of the signing of the contract, it is important to know what the builder has committed to build — and what he has not committed to — and what the buyer has agreed to pay for that product.  Once we have that foundation, we can address the construction changes and price changes from that point.

As a bad foundation of a house will undermine the entire project, a poor starting point for a new construction contract is not a good foundation for the construction process.

Then, once the initial scope, price and timing are clear, as change orders become necessary or appropriate, every single time a change order is agreed upon in a construction project, that change order should be crisply documented.  That documentation should be a written change order signed by both parties to the contract, which includes, in each instance, all of the following:

1) The change to the scope of the project.  The parties should detail what is being eliminated from the construction and what is being added.

2) The change in the price as a result of the change order.

3) The change in the construction schedule as a result of the change order.

Even if one or more of the foregoing are not changing at all, that should be detailed and documented as well.

I tell clients that the point of a contract is twofold: (i) to flesh out the issues between the parties and eliminate confusion as to what is being agreed upon and (ii) to create a document of the commitment of each party to the other that, yes, can be enforced in a court of law.

What happens when one or more of these issues are left unaddressed is that both issues are at play: (i) the parties may have a misunderstanding of the impact of the change order on timing or price, and (ii) it creates a murky situation when it comes time to enforce that contract.

 

My law school alma mater, Salmon P. Chase College of Law, is offering a Master of Legal Studies program folks who want to acquire targeted legal knowledge and skills in a year or so, but who don’t want to practice law or commit 3 or 4 years to law school.  It’s an interesting and new option.

The idea is that professionals in business, real estate, media and publishing, criminal justice and other disciplines can take focused studies in the law aimed at helping them to better understand our legal and governmental systems.

 

The scenario is as follows: A party files a formal appeal of his property’s tax valuation before one of Ohio’s 88 Boards of Revision and then fails to appear to prosecute his case.  It would seem automatic that the case is dismissed, and the complainant would have no right of appeal.

But Ohio is unique in that new evidence can be presented before the Board of tax Appeals following a win or loss at the Board of Revision.  It’s not exactly a trial de novo, but it’s close.

Thus, the question recently before the Ohio Supreme Court was whether a complainant in that circumstance has the right to appear before the Board of Tax Appeals to challenge the Board of Revision dismissal, and still seek a reduction in valuation.

Prior precedent of the Ohio Supreme Court said definitively “no.”  LCL Income Properties v. Rhodes, 1995.  However, as Court News Ohio reports here, the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision on July 2 in Ginter v. Auglaise County Board of Revision changes all that, and now the complainant will have a second bite at the apple at the Board of Tax Appeals.

The Finney Law Firm has a strength in bringing claims under Ohio’s Open Meetings and Public Records laws, and we are used to seeing amazing defenses that public officials raise to their secretive acts in violation of Ohio law.

But even we were surprised at a counterclaim against a Council member brought on the basis that he refused to raise taxes, and refuses to adopt the “company line” on a host of other initiatives.  Maggie Thurber of Ohio’s Watchdog.Org writes, here, about this counterclaim against a Finney Law Firm client.  It’s going to be an interesting one!

A copy of the counterclaim is here.