Hi, How Can We Help You?

Category Archives: Public Interest Law

Benefits of Attorney Representation in the North Bend, Ohio Hillside Development Case

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

We are pleased to present this blog entry from guest author, Eric Russo, executive director of The Hillside Trust, a non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation and thoughtful use of our region’s hillsides. Eric has served this organization for over 35 years. His opinion is not a paid endorsement of the Finney Law Firm. Rather, he has worked with multiple other highly qualified land use attorneys that have helped deny or overturn various hillside developments that have posed threats to their communities.

 ______________________

On February 3, 2025, the North Bend Planning Commission voted 4-0 against a hillside development proposed above St. Annes Dr in the Aston Oaks Community.  The residents of St. Annes hired the Finney Law Firm and worked in opposition with The Hillside Trust.

I have been involved in scores of hillside development reviews throughout the Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky region.  The Hillside Trust often testifies in these cases when it determines that a project presents a host of issues that are detrimental to the geological integrity of a hillside and/or to the safety of the surrounding community. It provides this testimony free of charge as a public service.

There are instances where an impacted community has reached out to The Hillside Trust seeking its expertise, particularly when a development is posing an environmental threat.  One of my first recommendations in these situations is to encourage the community to engage the services of a qualified land use attorney. My reasoning is simple. When you have expert legal representation, two things will happen.  First, your side is allotted the requisite time to present all arguments against the development.  Often this will include legal matters related to land use and zoning that are less familiar to the lay person.  Having additional time on your side will be an added benefit, considering that both proponents and opponents alike are usually allotted a set amount of time to testify, typically ranging from 2 minutes to 5 minutes per person.  Second, your attorney is afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the testimony of the development team’s professionals, just as his or her attorney can cross-examine the witnesses of its opponents. Based on my experience, when a developer has legal representation, and opponents do not, the decision invariably will side with the developer.

I commend the neighbors of St. Annes Dr for investing in attorney representation to protect the financial and environmental interests of their street. The North Bend Planning Commission hearing lasted well over 4 hours, including a three-hour Power Point presentation of expert witness testimony coordinated by Rebecca Simpson, an attorney with the Finney Law Firm. I have no doubt this expert legal representation aided in the ultimate denial of this environmentally consequential hillside development.

As the real estate market continues to escalate in value, there are substantial profits that will be made from development.  Consequently, developers are building attorney fees into the costs of doing business. Short of owning the piece of development property in question, a community’s best tactic is to have legal representation by an experienced land use attorney.  It does not guarantee they will win the case. However, their concerns will be represented far more equitably in their quest to level the playing field of administrative review.

Private Cause of Action for Zoning Violations in Ohio

Author By J. Andrew GrayPosted on

Introduction

Is your neighbor violating a county, township, village, or city zoning ordinance? Have you reported the violation to your local government, but the local government refuses to take action? If your neighbor’s violation affects your property value, you may be able to sue directly and enforce the zoning code.

In this article, I will be discussing the right of private landowners to sue under and enforce county, township, village, and city zoning codes against nearby property owners or users, specifically those who are impacting the landowner’s property value or rights.

Background

Zoning ordinances, codes, and regulations are laws enacted by local governments, such as counties, townships, villages, and cities. Zoning laws are designed by local governments to control what a landowner may do with their property and how the property can by improved or changed. The most impactful form of zoning laws relate to land use; for example, a property zoned for a residential land use can only be used for homes, apartments, or condominiums, restricting the landowner from opening a commercial use like a store. Some zoning laws further restrict the intensity of land uses, stopping a landowner from building an apartment within a zone designated for single-family homes. Further, zoning laws can affect the size and placement of buildings, fences, and other improvements through maximum building height restrictions, minimum setback requirements, and minimum parking requirements.

As a general rule, most zoning ordinances, building and housing codes, and other local laws cannot be enforced by a private party. Typically, the local government is the only party with “standing” to enforce such a law. “Standing” is the legal term for the right of a person to file a lawsuit. However, some state laws create a private cause of action to stop or prevent a zoning violation, granting a landowner standing to sue a neighbor or adjoining landowner, as discussed below.

Statutes

Three Ohio statutes grant private landowners the right to sue for a neighbor’s violation of a zoning ordinance – R.C. 713.13 for landowners in cities and villages, R.C. 519.24 for townships, and R.C. 303.24 for counties. These statutes allow private landowners to sue for an injunction against neighbors acting in violation of the zoning statutes if the private landowner is or would be “especially damaged by such violation… .”[1] Injunctions are remedies which do not provide for damages, or monetary relief, but are court orders which directs a party to act or not act in a certain way. For example, if your neighbor is running a business out of their garage, an injunction could force the neighbor to close the business or move it to a different location.

Legal Standing to Sue

In order for a private landowner to have standing to sue for zoning violations, the statutes require that landowners be “especially damaged” by the zoning violation they are trying to enjoin. Ohio courts have fleshed out several avenues by which a landowner can show special damages from a zoning violation sufficient to grant standing to sue.

Lowered property values constitutes special damages; the landowner’s or an appraiser’s testimony that the landowner’s property value has diminished is sufficient to prove standing.[2] Additionally, Ohio courts have found that a landowner has established special damages from a zoning violation where the “character of the neighborhood would be affected in a different manner from other [similar] properties by the proposed use.”[3] Finally, a landowner has a special injury and standing to bring suit where the zoning violation interferes with the landowner’s use and enjoyment of their land.[4]

While R.C. 303.24, R.C. 519.24, and R.C. 713.13 grant a landowner the right to sue for a neighbor’s violation of a zoning statute, whether an injunction is granted is determined by the circumstances, including the costs of compliance with the law and the harm to the landowner created by the violation.[5]

Conclusion

If you need help with local zoning codes or real estate law in Ohio, wish to enforce a local zoning law as discussed in this article, or would like to learn more about zoning and other property codes, contact Chris Finney 513.943.6655, Jessica Gibson 513.943.5677, or J. Andrew Gray 513.943.6658 today.

[1] R.C. 303.24; R.C. 519.24; R.C. 713.13.

[2] Conkle v. S. Ohio Med. Center, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 04CA2973, 2005-Ohio-3965, ¶ 14.

[3] Ameigh v. Baycliffs Corp., 127 Ohio App.3d 254, 262, 712 N.E.2d 784 (6th Dist.1998), see also Verbillion v. Enon Sand & Gravel, LLC, 2021-Ohio-3850, 180 N.E.3d 638, ¶ 46-47, appeal not accepted for review 166 Ohio St.3d 1414, 2022-Ohio-554, 181 N.E.3d 1209.

[4] Miller v. W Carrollton, 91 Ohio App.3d 291, 296, 632 N.E.2d 582 (2d Dist.1993).

[5] Garcia v. Gillette, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2013-A-0015, 2014-Ohio-1868, ¶ 29.

Judge Wende Cross issues Order granting final Class Action Settlement in Cincinnati Alarms Case

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

A big win was had today in Court for two classes of Cincinnati taxpayers.

After more than four years of litigation — through Common Pleas Court, the Court of Appeals, an attempt for Ohio Supreme Court review and back — today Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Wende Cross signed the Order Approving Class Action Settlement in the case of Andrew White et al. v. City of Cincinnati, Ohio, Hamilton County, Ohio Common Pleas Court Case No. A1804206 (known as the “Alarms Tax Case”).

Background

The Order established a common fund of $3,277,802.25 from illegal alarms registration fees  (NOTE: not false alarm fees) collected by the City of Cincinnati from 2014 to present.  That nearly $3.3 million fund is to pay refunds to those who paid the illegal tax and attorneys fees incurred in the litigation.  The litigation in this matter was led by Maurice Thompson of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law.  Finney Law Firm and attorneys Christopher Finney and Julie Gugino served as co-counsel.

As we explain in more detail here, Judge Cross certified two classes to receive refunds (a) residential and (b) non-residential payors of the Cincinnati alarms tax.  The City charged residential alarm-system-owners $50 per year to register their systems and commercial owners $100 per year to register their systems.  Last fall, the 1st District Court of Appeals unanimously ruled the tax illegal under Ohio law and unconstitutional, overruling a trial Court ruling on the same subject.  In March of this year, the Ohio Supreme Court preserved that victory for Cincinnati property owners when it refused to accept discretionary review of the case.

Making a difference

“Making a difference” for our clients is the mission of Finney Law Firm and its capable attorneys.  In this case, we successfully enjoined the enforcement of the illegal tax and achieved more than seven years of refunds for payors.  The victory was won under both state law (the assessment was an illegal tax) and the U.S. Constitution (the tax was an infringement on free speech rights by preventing or making more difficult reporting of crimes to the police).

How to get your refund

If you were a Cincinnati alarm registration payor at any time from 2014 to today, you should already have received a postcard, email or voicemail about the refund.  If we have a current address for you (i.e., you received the postcard), you should be receiving a refund by by February 21, 2023.

If you have not gotten a mailed postcard, please make sure we have your name and current address (and the address for which the alarm tax was paid) (will post information shortly of where to write with this info).  Write to [email protected] with this information: your name, the payor’s name, your address, and the property for which the alarm registration fee was paid.

 

 

 

 

 

Judge Wende Cross certifies classes in Cincinnati “Alarms Tax” case

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Wende Cross has certified two classes in White v. Cincinnati, litigation in which both the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law and Finney Law Firm represented payors of the illegal and unconstitutional Cincinnati tax on security alarm systems.  The two distinct classes certified are (a) residential and (b) non-residential payors of the Cincinnati alarms tax.

The City charged residential alarm-system-owners $50 per year to register their systems and commercial owners $100 to register their systems.  Last fall, the 1st District Court of Appeals unanimously ruled the tax illegal under Ohio law and unconstitutional, overruling a trial Court ruling on the same subject.  In March of this year, the Ohio Supreme Court preserved that victory for Cincinnati property owners when it refused to accept discretionary review of the case.

We now proceed to an an Order that will establish the amount and procedures for the restitution of the illegally-collected sums, a fairness hearing, and then distribution of the refunds to payors.  We aim for the conclusion of those steps this calendar year.  The amount of restitution is expected to be more than $3.6 million.

For questions, contact Chris Finney at 513.943.6655.

You may read the order issued April 22 here.

 

 

Chris Finney talks to 700 WLW’s Bill Cunningham about unanimous jury verdict against the Ohio Civil Rights Commission Commission (outrageous)

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

Listen in as Chris Finney discusses his 8-0 unanimous victory against the Ohio Civil Rights Commission as they attempted to extract money for a tenant in an entirely frivolous case.  The conduct of the Ohio Attorney General’s office and the Ohio Civil Rights Commission was shameful and outrageous in this case.

 

Another public interest class action win — Cincinnati Alarm Tax

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

As we wrote here, in November the Ohio First District Court of Appeals in White v. Cincinnati unanimously ruled in favor of clients of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law and Finney Law Firm in a challenge to the City of Cincinnati’s alarm tax scheme. The City of Cincinnati asked the Ohio Supreme Court to review that decision, a discretionary call by Court.  Historically, Ohio’s top Court accepts only about 5% of such cases for consideration.

Today, the Ohio Supreme Court declined to accept for review the First District decision.  Since that was the last stop on the railroad for the City, the inevitable next legal steps are injunction against further collection of the tax, class certification and an order of restitution before Common Pleas Court Judge Wende Cross.

Amazingly, even after the First District ruled that the tax was illegal, through today the City of Cincinnati insisted on continued collection of the tax. So, an injunction by the trial court now will be necessary.

If you are a Cincinnati alarm fee payor, you should be expecting a refund once the amount has been calculated and the procedural hurdles cleared, perhaps later this year.  If the City continues to attempt to extract alarm charges from you, respectfully decline and send them this blog entry!

Making a difference: Cincinnati alarms tax ruled unconstitutional

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

Today, the First District Court of Appeals for Ohio unanimously (on all counts) ruled in favor of Plaintiffs Andrew White and Vena Jones-Cox that the City of Cincinnati’s charges to property owners with alarm systems are an unconstitutional tax.  That decision is linked here.  They remanded the matter back to Common Pleas Judge Leslie Ghiz for determination of class certification, refund of illegally-collected fees, and other matters.  Judge Ghiz originally had ruled that fee was a constitutional assessment imposed by the City.

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are Maurice Thompson of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law and Christopher P. Finney of the Finney Law Firm.

You may contact Christopher P. Finney (513.943.6655) for more information.

 

Chris Finney and Curt Hartman teach “Using Public Records to Overcome Government Bureaucracy” to Cincinnati Lawyer’s Club

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

On Thursday, November 18, 2021, attorneys Chris Finney and Curt Hartman will teach “Using Public Records to Overcome Government Bureaucracy” to Cincinnati Lawyer’s Club.  Registration is at 11:30, lunch is at noon, and the 2-hour program starts at 1:15 PM. No reservations are required.  CLE and lunch costs $25 for members and $30 for non-members.  For more information, call Robert W. Cettel, President  513-325-2279 (cell).

Curt Hartman, in particular, is a leading attorney in Ohio on Sunshine Law, which encompasses Ohio’s Open Meetings statute and Ohio’s Public Records statute.  Ohio has some of the strongest Sunshine Laws in the nation, and Finney Law Firm has pursued dozens of cases, including ones all the way to the Ohio Supreme Court, expanding the boundaries of public access to official business. The most famous of such cases was the “Gang of Five” case addressing corruption on Cincinnati City Council that significantly developed and expanded both the Open Meetings and Public Records statutes, but there have been dozens more.

Finney and Hartman will address the statutory and case law rights of the public to official business and regale the audience with important public interest victories (and losses) under those statutes.

For assistance with Ohio public records and open meeting statute matters, contact Chris Finney (513.943.6655) or Curt Hartman (513.379-2923).

National Association of Realtors to feature African American Realtors arrested for simply showing homes

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

Two years ago, Finney Law Firm was proud to represent African American Realtor Jerry Isham and his African American home buyer, Tony Edwards, who were accosted by seven Cincinnati Police officers, guns drawn, then handcuffed for nearly five minutes, and forcibly searched, simply for the “crime” of showing a home listed for sale (and really it was no more complicated than that).  The City of Cincinnati settled the civil claim 16 hours and 30 minutes after the suit was filed by Finney Law Firm attorneys.

Then, in August of this year, the Isham story appeared to repeat itself in Grand Rapids, Michigan with the arrest of African American Realtor Eric Brown of Keller Williams and his buyer, Roy Thorne, who were arrested simply for viewing a home listed for sale. Read about that here.

On November 13, the National Association of Realtors will feature Isham and Brown in a symposium entitled “Race & Real Estate” at its annual Realtors  Conference & Expo in San Diego, California to shine a spotlight on the extra challenges faced by African Americans in the real estate industry.

Our firm was proud to represent Jerry Isham, a top real estate professional in Cincinnati and the owner of Movement Realty, who did not deserve this shabby treatment by Cincinnati Police, in this matter.  We are pleased that his case has been given this important platform for further exploration of racism in the real estate industry.

Isham is the former President of both the Ohio and Cincinnati Realtists Associations and is currently the Region VIII Vice President of the National Association of Real Estate Brokers.

Our Public Interest Law team at Finney Law Firm, including Chris Finney and Curt Hartman, pursued the public records (mostly dash cam and body cam videos) of the incident, and filed this case in federal court on behalf of Isham and Edwards.

If you are attending the National Association of Realtors’ Convention & Expo, we encourage you to attend this important session.

  • For more background on the Isham story and the work of the Finney Law Firm’s Public Interest Law team, read here and watch here. The story captivated Cincinnati television viewers and was the topic of radio talk shows for weeks.  Watch here, here, here, and here and read here and here.  It even made news internationally.  Read here. Veteran Cincinnati reporter Jennifer Edwards Baker of WXIX, Channel 19, initially broke the story. The Youtube video linked to this story analyzing in detail the Isham/Edwards arrest has had more than 5.6 million views, so the story has since captivated the nation.

 

 

Cincinnati Community Reinvestment Area tax abatements for renovations of existing residential structures

Author By Jennings D. KleemanPosted on

Cincinnati homeowners may obtain a Community Reinvestment Area (“CRA”) tax abatement by renovating existing residential structures. This practice is common and reduces tax liability for homeowners who make such renovations. That said, recently, various homeowners with existing CRA Tax Abatements suffered a reduction in their existing CRA Tax Abatement. This issue was as new to us as it may be to you.

To preemptively clear up the foregoing issue for others, this blog post will discuss a background of the CRA Tax Abatement Program for existing residential structures, the importance of submitting the application in a timely manner, and how the Hamilton County Auditor’s Office, which has a duty to make appraisals, and can make such appraisals based on its own preferred method, calculates Tax Abatements.

Background

The CRA Tax Abatement Program is meant to stimulate revitalization, retain residents, and attract new homeowners, in the Cincinnati area. To encourage the foregoing types of behavior, the City of Cincinnati Department of Economic Development provides CRA Tax Abatements to certain homeowners who renovate existing residential structures (e.g., residential homes and residential condos, up to three units). To qualify for a CRA Tax Abatement, the cost of renovations must total at least $2,500.00, or $5,000.00, depending on the number of units in the residential structure. Some renovations, which might increase the marketability of a residential structure, are not contemplated in the cost of renovations (e.g., roofing, windows, gutters, vinyl siding, etc.) Likewise, unrelated improvements and tax on the land itself are not contemplated in the cost of renovations.

To apply for the CRA Tax Abatement Program, applicants will need to submit an application to the City of Cincinnati Department of Economic Development. Applicants who are renovating existing residential structures must pay an application fee of $250.00, which may be paid by check, to the “City of Cincinnati.” Also, applicants will need to submit evidence showing that all permits related to the renovations are closed. Applicants may obtain such evidence here. Finally, applicants will need to submit a document evidencing the costs of the renovations. Such evidence should be in the form of a notarized list indicating (i) the general categories of the work completed; (ii) the date such work was completed; and (iii) the expenses, including costs of labor, associated with each category of work completed.

Timing of the Application

Under the CRA Tax Abatement Program, the Hamilton County Auditor’s Office can set a CRA Tax Abatement Period for, at most, ten years, unless homeowners comply with LEED, LBC, or HERS standards, which are not discussed herein. That said, under the CRA Tax Abatement Program, the applicant cannot apply for the abatement until renovations are complete, and the CRA Tax Abatement is not applied to the residential structure until the application has been submitted.  Despite those rules, the abatement period begins when the renovations are commenced. Furthermore, it might take the City of Cincinnati eight weeks to respond to the application. As such, an applicant should complete their renovations and apply as quickly as possible to avoid missing out on their CRA Tax Abatement period.

Calculation of the Abatement

The Hamilton County Auditor’s Office recently started calculating CRA Tax Abatements under the “Percentage Method.” Under the Percentage Method, the Hamilton County Auditor’s Office determines a homeowner’s CRA Tax Abatement amount by dividing the contributed value of all the improvements, at the time construction began, by the value of the home without improvements. The purpose of the Percentage Method is to provide homeowners with a percentage that remains consistent, despite changes in home values.

Before the Percentage Method, the Hamilton County Auditor’s Office calculated CRA Tax Abatements under the “Beginning Value Method.” Under the Beginning Value Method, the Hamilton County Auditor’s Office determined a homeowner’s CRA Tax Abatement amount by subtracting the value of the home without improvements from the contributed value of all the improvements, at the time construction began. The Beginning Value Method created an issue where homeowners were unable to truly appreciate the value of their CRA Tax Abatement, because, when their property value increased, the value of their abatements did not, leaving them with little tax liability savings.

Due to the foregoing issue, the Hamilton County Auditor’s Office reacted by creating the Percentage Method. Despite its best intentions, the Hamilton County Auditor’s Office did not provide for grandfather clause for the various homeowners, with CRA Tax Abatements, who were content with their CRA Tax Abatement Valuation. This gave rise to the issue first described in this blog post, which the Finney Law Firm resolved for similarly situated homeowners. So, if you are a similarly situated homeowner and need professional guidance on how to remedy such issue, call the Finney Law Firm, today!

1 2 3 … 33