Christopher P. Finney, founder of Finney Law Firm, LLC, was named among Cincy Leading Lawyers® and was be featured in the February, 2020 issue of Cincy Magazine.  According to the publication, hundreds of members of Greater Cincinnati’s legal community nominated colleagues for this honor, specifying a particular strength and area of practice for each, so it is a great distinction to be recognized by your peers.

ABOUT FINNEY LAW FIRM

In 2014, led by Christopher P. Finney, seven bright, hard-working attorneys and a dedicated and talented staff, came together to form Finney Law Firm.  Our team is committed to a unique practice of law that makes a positive difference for our clients by focusing on defining and then arriving at the best outcome for them. Finney Law Firm’s practice has extensive experience in the broad range of legal services that individuals and businesses may need:

  • Business formation and development
  • Real estate
  • Cincinnati landlord/tenant law
  • Estate planning and administration
  • Commercial dispute resolution
  • Public interest law
  • Labor and employment law
  • Bankruptcy
  • Personal Injury and Wrongful Death
  • Water Law
  • Affiliated Title Company – Ivy Pointe Title, LLC

“We work relentlessly to add value for our clients by applying cutting edge legal strategies and utilizing highly productive technology, said Finney.  This approach allows us to keep pace with the changing demands of our clients’ own challenging personal and business environments.

You may contact Chris Finney at 513.943.6655.

Frequently we encounter situations in which a buyer under a purchase contract, be it commercial or residential, desires to take occupancy of real estate before the closing (i.e, the tender of the purchase price).

A buyer may want early occupancy for a host of reasons. For both commercial and residential buyers, they many times desire occupancy before their financing can be formally approved. This might be because a commercial buyer desires to move or “rig” his manufacturing equipment into a property by a certain date. Many times commercial and residential buyers want to modify the property in some signifiant way such as moving walls, re-doing a kitchen or changing the electrical panel.

It also may be because the seller can’t close because of a title problem, or some other seller performance issue.

Does it legally make sense to allow for early occupancy? Is this a good idea?

From the buyer’s perspective

From the buyer’s perspective, it’s sort of a no-risk proposition, in that it gets the use and occupancy of the property without paying for it. And, as is discussed below, it gives the buyer the full chance to the the property for a “test drive,” before buying.

However, if the buyer is making a costly move or expensive improvements to the property, it should consider the “what if” if the seller can’t or won’t ultimately close.

From the seller’s perspective

But many of the reasons it makes sense for a buyer to take early occupancy are the precise reasons why it might be a bad idea for the seller to permit it.

First, by giving the buyer the right to a “test drive,” he invariably finds things with the property that are either defective or less than optimal, and then the buyer demands repairs or modifications before agreeing to close.

The reality is that a buyer needs a place to operate his business; he needs a place to live. Depriving a buyer of possession until he tenders the purchase price is strong leverage to force a closing.

But if the closing can’t occur because the seller can’t perform, such as a title problem, it may be a way to “keep the buyer”under contract for a later closing once the seller’s performance problem is resolved.

Removing a buyer from the property if he doesn’t close

Then, after early occupancy is granted, there is the problem if some exigency arises that prevents the buyer from closing: The financing is never approved, the buyer dies, a divorce, the business goes bankrupt, or a dispute among business partners arises. Any of these things can result in the buyer not closing pursuant to the contract, whether there is a contractual obligation to close or not.  So then what?

If that happens, the seller will have to legally remove a buyer from the property.

In the case of a residential occupant, regardless of the lack of justification of a tenant staying in the property, the owner must go through a judicial “forcible entry and detainer,” or eviction action. This can last from two to six months to judicially recover possession (and extreme circumstances, longer). In the case of a commercial occupant, they can be removed unilaterally (i.e., without court involvement) by the owner under certain circumstances. This article addresses non-judicial commercial set outs.

Nightmare scenarios

In addition to fighting to get property back from an occupant, there are circumstances in which an occupant does so much damage to a property it  is a nightmare for the seller: Property modifications and property damage such as to carpeting, doors, walls, and the like. Simply recovering possession can be only half the “cost” of a bad choice of allowing early occupancy. And as a landlord I can tell you: You simply can’t imagine the way some tenants live: Pet damage, holes in walls and doors, and destroyed carpet, all occurring in relatively short periods of time.

Unpermitted early occupancy

We also have encountered a situation in which buyer have just taken it upon themselves to “move into” a property with no permission forth seller.  As unimaginable as it seems, it has happened. We once had an out-of-state manufacturing client with a factory north of Dayton. They had moved out of the property to their home plant in Minnesota. They had no more personnel on the ground in Ohio. The buyer was a local gun manufacturer. Their equipment was huge milling and drilling machines that took hundreds of thousands of dollars for “rigging” to move. Thus buyer not only had the audacity to move into the property before closing, and commenced his manufacturing and shipping operations, all without the seller’s permission, they actually posted photos of their new facility on their company web site!

Our seller client, asked us for options, and we advised them to just “lock out” the tenant and let them suffer the consequences.  Boy, did that get their attention. Within hours of them finding the doors locked, they quickly found a way to get the transaction closed, and paid our client rent for the early occupancy, but also a penalty and our attorneys fees.

Insurance issues

Even allowing a buyer to “move his stuff into the garage” before closing can cause these “early occupancy” problems.  But one scenario to consider is that once a tenant occupies a property, it is no longer “owner occupied” and the property and casualty protection that exists on homes and businesses may not cover tenant incidents and tenant property. In one fact pattern with which I am familiar, the house burned to the ground after the tenant moved his furniture into the garage. In such scenario, the personal property of the tenant simply was not insured. Who is going to cover those losses?

Written agreement

In any event, if a buyer is going to take early occupancy, the parties should memorialize their agreement in writing: (i) What happens if the closing is further delayed? (ii) Is the tenant allowed to modify the property? (iii) is there a security deposit against damage? (iv) Who is responsible for insuring against personal injury, wrongful death, damage to the property itself and damage to the buyer’s personal property during the period of early occupancy? These are just some of the issues the early occupancy agreement should address.

Conclusion

In short, early occupancy is one of those things that might seem like a good idea a the time, but in retrospect it was unwise or even a nightmare. It should be undertaken only with open eyes and great caution by both parties, considering the “what if” if the closing never occurs, considering the insurance issues, considering potential property damages, and getting all aspects of the agreement in writing.

For assistance with your real estate needs, contact Isaac T. Heintz (513.943-6654) or Eli N. Krafte-Jacobs (513.797-2853).

 

 

Finney Law Firm is proud to announce that it has recently become AV Preeminent Rated by Martindale-Hubbell.  Martindale-Hubbell’s AV rating is the highest level of professional excellence at which a firm can be ranked in ability and ethics, and we are thrilled to join this elite group.

This rating is on top of the annual US News & World Report “Best Law Firms” rating that we have attained each year since the firm’s founding.

The Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings System is based on the confidential opinions of members of the Bar and the judiciary. Martindale-Hubbell representatives conduct personal interviews with other members of the Bar to discuss lawyers under review. A consensus from fifteen judges and practicing attorneys is necessary to produce a rating. In addition, confidential questionnaires are sent to lawyers and judges in the same geographic location and/or area of practice as the lawyer being rated. Members of the Bar are instructed to assess their colleague’s legal ability and general ethical standards. Lawyers’ ratings serve as an objective indicator of a firm’s ethical standards and professional ability.

Their web site explains the “A” and the “V” ratings:

Historically the Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ system utilized an “A – B – C” scale to estimate the legal ability and ethical standards of an attorney. To qualify for an “A” rating an attorney had to be reported as “Very High” in their legal ability and had been practicing for at least 10 years, a “B” rating meant an attorney was rated “High” and had to be practicing for at least 5 years, and a “C” rating meant that the attorney was rated “fair” with no limitations on how long they were practicing. A second rating was also given to go along with the “A – B – C” rating and that was a “V,” meaning that the attorney’s peers stated they had “Very High” ethical standards. Over the years this transitioned to “AV”, “BV”, and “CV” ratings – with an “AV” rating meaning that the attorney had reached the highest of professional excellence and is recognized for the highest levels of skill and integrity.

We are pleased to have reached this gold standard by this distinguished organization who has recognized law firms for their high ethical standards and legal abilities for over a century.  In an environmental where the market for legal services is highly competitive, the AV Preeminent Rating is a vital tool for prospective clients to evaluate a law firm before engaging them for their services.  This rating provides the assurance that those needing legal services in the areas of Commercial and Residential Real Estate, Corporate Transactional, Business & Commercial Litigation, Labor & Employment Law, Estate Planning & Administration, Public Interest Law, Personal Injury and Property Tax Valuation will receive a superior level of professional experience.

I got a great question from a client this past week. He had a seller who was located in Mexico for his job. The facility at which he worked was nowhere near a US Embassy or Consulate, and the drive to the Embassy or Consulate was somewhat dangerous.  How could he get a valid and proper signed and notarized deed back to Ohio for the closing?

I thought: What a great chance for a blog entry on foreign execution and acknowledgement of recordable instruments (deeds, mortgages, etc.) in Ohio! (How exciting is my life!)

Domestic execution

First, when I started my career in real estate law, most (not all) instruments required two witnesses and a notary public to sign in order for the instrument to be recordable in Ohio.  Since then, the requirement for two witnesses has been dispensed with, so all that is needed for an execution of a recordable instrument in Ohio is a signature of the owner and an acknowledgement (notarization) (there are lots of other requirements as to the form).

Execution and acknowledgement in other states

Then, O.R.C.  § 5301.06 provides:

All deeds, mortgages, powers of attorney, and other instruments of writing for the conveyance or encumbrance of lands, tenements, or hereditaments situated within this state, executed and acknowledged, or proved, in any other state, territory, or country in conformity with the laws of such state, territory, or country, or in conformity with the laws of this state, are as valid as if executed within this state.

So, for other states and territories of the United States, meeting the execution requirements in that state (usually just a signature and an out-of-state acknowledgement) is just as valid as one from Ohio.

Execution and acknowledgement in foreign countries

Further, the above-statute provides that an acknowledgement from another country is valid if made in conformity with the laws of the other country.

That means that the Ohio title attorney signing off on the instrument would need to know the law the other country, which they will not (and since it is written in their language, would be difficult to research and discern with the degree of certainty required to assure quality transfer of title).

In this instance, the Mexican notary required an expensive (relatively) translation of the instrument into Spanish before acknowledging that instrument, and the Ohio title attorney would not accept the dual-translations in the document for recording.  For these reasons, it was a becoming a disaster before the matter came to our firm.

That takes us to the second option for execution outside of the United States: O.R.C. § 147.51:

Notarial acts may be performed outside this state for use in this state with the same effect as if performed by a notary public of this state by the following persons authorized pursuant to the laws and regulations of other governments, in addition to any other persons authorized by the laws and regulations of this state:

(A) A notary public authorized to perform notarial acts in the place in which the act is performed;

(B) A judge, clerk, or deputy clerk of any court of record in the place in which the notarial act is performed;

(C) An officer of the foreign service of the United States, a consular agent, or any other person authorized by regulation of the United States department of state to perform notarial acts in the place in which the act is performed;

(D) A commissioned officer in active service with the armed forces of the United States and any other person authorized by regulation of the armed forces to perform notarial acts if the notarial act is performed for one of the following or for a dependent of one of the following:

(1) A member of the merchant marines of the United States;

(2) A member of the armed forces of the United States;

(3) Any other person serving with or accompanying the armed forces of the United States.

(E) Any other person authorized to perform notarial acts in the place in which the act is performed.

As a practical matter, I just tell clients to get themselves to a US Embassy or Consular office.  It is best to call in advance and make an appointment (a) to assure they perform these services at the office you intend to visit, (b) to assure a notary is present at the time you show up, and (c) to assure the Embassy or Consulate is open at that time.  Further, embassies and consulates are used to performing these services for American citizens and residents.  This procedure is blessed by Section (C), above.

Then, members of the Armed Forces and their families have the additional option of going to a military base and having “a commissioned officer in active service with the armed forces of the United States and any other person authorized by regulation of the armed forces to perform notarial acts” performing the acknowledgement.

How about the new electronic notary process?

So, I thought when the problem was presented to me, wouldn’t this be a perfect use of the e-notary law (O.R.C. § 147.591, et seq.)?

Well, no, it would not, as I would learn.

Although the e-notary situated in Ohio can perform valid acknowledgements remotely, including with signers sitting in other states, he has no authority to acknowledge an instrument for a principal sitting outside of the “territory of the United States” O.R.C. § 147.64 (C).  Well, that threw cold water on that idea!

Corporate and LLC signatures

If the owner of the property in question is a corporation or a limited liability company, it may be possible to sign a corporate resolution (not requiring a notary) authorizing someone in the US to sign and have acknowledged the recordable instrument, thus saving the need to drive to an Embassy or Consulate.

Conclusion

So, in short, if you are outside of the United States or its territories, and want to execute and properly notarize a real estate instrument for recording in Ohio, (a) have the documents emailed to you where you are, (b) print them out, (c) get thee to an Embassy or Consulate and (d) Fed Ex them back to the closing agent in Ohio (subject to an escrow agreement or such other assurances as your attorney advises). If you are in a country without diplomatic relations with the United States, you may be out of luck.

For assistance with your Ohio and Kentucky real estate closing needs, please contact Rick Turner (513.943.5661), Isaac Heintz (513.943.6654) or Eli Krafte-Jacobs (513.797.2853).

This blog post by attorney Stephen Richmond of the Cleveland and Columbus law firm of Kohrman Jackson Krantz features our important twin class action victories in federal court in challenging municipal post of sale and rental inspection ordinances as violations of the Fourth Amendment (unconstitutional warrantless searches) to the United States Constitution.

We co-counseled these cases with attorney Maurice Thompson of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, which uses litigation strategies to advance the cause of free enterprise throughout Ohio.

This blog entry actually misses the first in a series of point-of-sale warrantless search cases in Ohio, our challenge in 2014 an ordinance in the City of Portsmouth, Ohio.  That decision from 2015 by Federal District Court Judge Susan J. Dlott is reported here.

Importantly, the Finney Law Firm challenges and confronts zoning and land use enforcement actions by municipalities using all of the legal tools at the disposal of our clients, including the United States Constitution.

It explains the issues well.

 

 

 

Most salespeople are compensated at least in part on commission. Some earn a salary in addition to sales commissions, and some are paid solely by commission. Either way, sales commissions are the “lifeblood” of a salesperson. If someone messes with the commissions of a salesperson, they are going to hear about it. It’s how they earn their living and feed their families.

But what happens if the employment relationship ends? Does a salesperson have any right to commissions after they leave or are terminated?

What does the contract say?

This can be a very complicated question. There are a variety of factors that courts will look at in determining whether or not post-termination commissions may be owed to a salesperson who has resigned or been terminated. First and foremost, courts will look at whether or not the parties had a contract that dictated how post-termination commissions were to be handled. Such a contract can exist in an explicit, written form, but it can also arise from the course of dealings between the parties, or by way of commission plans that are clearly communicated to salespeople during their employment.

What if there is no contract?

In the absence of a contract, courts will sometimes look at what is the custom in the industry in order to determine whether, and if so to what extent, post-termination commissions may be owed to a former salesperson.

Was the commission “earned” prior to separation?

Another important factor is the extent to which the commission was “earned” by the salesperson before termination. If the salesperson, prior to separation from employment, had already done everything required of him/her in order to receive the commission, but the payment of the commission just didn’t happen to come due until sometime after separation, courts are more likely to find that the employee is legally  entitled to the commission. There is a saying that “the law abhors a forfeiture.” This means that the law does not like it when, through no fault of their own, someone is forced to “forfeit” money or property that they possess or have earned.

On the other hand, if a salesperson separated from employment when there was still work to be done for an account – for instance, if certain services were still needed from the salesperson after the sale had been made, and such services were not performed because the salesperson’s employment ended in the meantime – courts are less likely to find that the salesperson is legally entitled to the commission, since the commission arguably had not been fully “earned” at the time of separation.

Different treatment of employees versus independent contractors

It is also important to note that the treatment of sales commission issues are handled differently when the salesperson is an independent contractor, rather than an employee. Ohio, for instance, has a specific statute that addresses sales commissions earned by independent contractors. The statute is very favorable to the salesperson, in that it allows him or her to recover significant additional amounts beyond the unpaid commissions themselves. This statute does not apply, however, to employees.

Conclusion

Obviously, this is a very tricky and complex area of the law. Both companies and salespeople need to have knowledgeable legal counsel in their corner when facing issues involving disputed sales commissions.

Contact Stephen Imm (513-943-5678) or Matt Okiishi (513-943-6659) from the Finney Law Firm employment group for answers to any questions you may have on this topic.

Finney Law Firm together with the firm of Markovits, Stock and DeMarco have initiated a major class action, fraud and federal racketeering law suit against Build Realty, Greenleaf Funding, Edgar Construction, First Title Agency, Inc. and Smith-Graham & Co., along with individuals Gary Bailey, George Triantifilou, Stephen King and a host of other co-conspirators.

Today, reporter Paula Christian has posted a “deep dive” story on the scheme on WCPO.Com and we expect the video story will air this evening.

The case alleges that Build Realty solicits innocent and unsophisticated home “flippers” through a variety of means, including new investor seminars, and induces them to enter into a costly and fraudulent investment scheme.  As set forth in the Complaint, the scheme defrauds those investors out of their initial $10,000 down payment in a variety of ways, and then sinks them deeper with 15% interest rates and a trust structure that allows Build to just “take away” their property with no advance notice to the investor and no judicial proceeding.

Among the methods of fraud include photo-shopping bank statements and checks, charging thousands of dollars in phantom fees at closing, and misleading investors with knowingly suppressed renovation estimates and inflated “after repair value” estimates of the property’s worth.

We estimate the number of victims of the fraud to exceed 600 at present.  To our knowledge, the fraudulent conduct continues to this day.

The case is presently before Federal District Court Judge Michael R. Barrett and is captioned Compound Property Management, LLC, el al. v. Build Realty d/b/a Greenleaf Funding, et al. Federal District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 1:19-CV-00133.

You may read the story here.

You may read the entire federal law suit here.

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.