Hi, How Can We Help You?

Blog

Tea Party groups move to unseal Lois Lerner and Holly Paz depositions

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

As we previously wrote about, here, Finney Law Firm was honored to serve as co-counsel to Tea Party groups throughout the nation in what we believe was the only certified class action ever against the Internal Revenue Service for its targeted discrimination against the plaintiffs resulting in protracted delays in processing and granting tax exemption status due to their political viewpoints. The targeting was led by Obama administration IRS official Lois Lerner and her chief deputy at the IRS, Holly Paz.

After years of pitched legal battles, that litigation ended with a dramatic settlement in which the IRS paid damages to Tea Party groups, the IRS paid the Tea Parties’ attorneys fees, and then-US Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a personal apology on behalf of the United States of America that included this unequivocal statement about the IRS intentional wrongdoing: “this abuse of power will not be tolerated.”

In that litigation, plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining the depositions of Lerner and Paz, but the transcripts of the depositions — finally revealing their own testimony about the origins and implementation of the outrageous policies and practices — have remain sealed under a temporary emergency Order by Judge Michael Barrett. (Even US House and Senate Committees investigating the wrongdoing were stymied in getting that testimony when Lerner and Paz each invoked their 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.)  That Order bottling up the deposition transcripts was never made final, and thus it could not be appealed.  Thus, to this day — more than three years later — the deposition transcripts remain hidden from public scrutiny.

As a result, this week, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Motion for Writ of Mandamus before the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to have the depositions unsealed.  You may read the Motion here.

What is Defamation Per Se and What Damages Are Recoverable?

Author By Todd McMurtryPosted on

If you own a business or engage in any other profession in Kentucky, you depend on your reputation to draw the customers or clients you need. Even in your private life, you want to maintain a good name. But all that can be undermined if someone makes false statements about you. Kentucky and other states recognize that such statements, known as defamation, may entitle you or your business to recover money damages for the resulting loss of reputation. Usually, you need to prove actual injury but in some cases — those involving defamation per se — the injury might be presumed.

Defamation per se is defined as spoken or written language that exposes the plaintiff to public hatred, ridicule, contempt or disgrace. It can also be a statement that causes people to have such a negative opinion of the plaintiff that they refuse to associate with him or her. Examples are statements that accuses a person of incest or adultery or unfairly prejudices the public against the person in their business or profession.

However, a federal court case applying the Kentucky law of defamation per se in a commercial context declared that it is not enough to say that a business’ product is bad. To be defamation per se, a statement must suggest that the business engaged in fraud, deceit, or dishonest or other reprehensible conduct.

There is also a distinction between what counts as libel per se or as slander per se. In a case of libel, which means defamation in writing, the court looks at the ordinary, natural meaning of the express language itself to determine whether it’s defamatory per se. For slander, which means spoken defamation, it is sufficient that the language used merely implies fraud, dishonesty, a crime or other illegal or unethical conduct.

In defamation cases, the damages that a jury may award to individuals or corporations include:

  • Damage to the plaintiff’s reputation
  • Specific economic damages, such as loss of employment or profits
  • Punitive damages, if the defendant’s conduct was oppressive, malicious or fraudulent

The significance of a finding of defamation per se is that it automatically establishes the plaintiff’s entitlement to damages without having to show an exact dollar amount of harm suffered. However, it is still important for plaintiffs to quantify their damages in order to maximize recovery. Otherwise, the jury is left to its own subjective determination of damages, which may be far lower than deserved.

About Finney Law Firm, LLC

Founded in 2014, FLF has grown to 15 attorneys located in offices in Eastgate and downtown Cincinnati with five major practice areas: Corporate Law, Real Estate Law, Employment Law, Commercial Litigation and Public Interest and Constitutional Litigation.  FLF has the unique claim to three 9-0 victories at the United States Supreme Court for its public interest practice along with breakthrough class action work.

FLF also has an affiliated title insurance company, Ivy Pointe Title, LLC, that closes and insures nearly a thousand commercial and residential real estate transactions annually.

For more information about Finney Law Firm, visit finneylawfirm.com.

Media Contact: Mickey McClanahan; mickey@finneylawfirm.isoc.net; 513.797.2850.

 

Ohio legislature sends major changes in Boards of Education/Boards of Revision process to Governor DeWine for signature

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

A bill passed this week by the Ohio legislature could make major changes in the current process for Ohio tax valuation challenges before Ohio Boards of Revision as it relates to participation by Boards of Education if Governor DeWine signs it into law.

Unlike the procedures in many other states, in Ohio, Boards of Education (the major recipients of property tax monies) may both initiate complaints to increase the valuation of real property (and thus increase property taxes owed) and may oppose a property owner’s legal attempts to secure a reduction in tax values as well.

Some major features of the legislation, Am. Sub. H.B. 126, follow:

  1. School districts may not initiate a complaint to increase valuation unless the challenge meets all of three requirements (a) the challenge is based upon an actual arm’s length sale of the subject property before the tax lien date in question (this would then, it seems, also rule out challenges at all of “entity transfer” sales and sales after the tax lien date in question), (b) the sale is at least 10% above the then-established Auditor’s valuation and (c) such sale price exceeds the Auditor’s valuation by at least $500,000 (that amount is then annually subject to a CPI adjustment).
  2. Boards of Education would have to carefully undertake extensive and detailed procedures to specifically authorize by resolution such challenges, on a property-by-property basis, with at least seven days’ advance certified mail notice to each affected property owner.  The level of detail of these procedures appears to be nothing more than a series of procedural traps for Boards of Education to discourage their involvement in the tax valuation process.
  3. The involvement of Boards of Education stop at the Board of Revision.  While property owners or the Auditor may pursue an appeal of a Board of Revision decision, Boards of Education will have no authority to appeal (or participate in a property owner appeal) of a Board of Revision decision.
  4. Presently, property owners may enter into private settlements with school districts to avoid or end their opposition to a valuation reduction or its attempts to seek valuation increases. H.B. 126 will outlaw the practice of entering into these “side deals.”

More minor changes include:

  1. Boards of Education may file counterclaims to property owner complaints to reduce valuations only if the initial Complaint seeks a reduction of at least $17,500 (Boards of Education rarely if ever file counterclaims below this level at present).
  2. Boards of Revision lose jurisdiction to increase valuations of claims by Boards of Education are not acted upon within one year of the date of the filing of the Complaint (in our experience, this delay only happens in a few large urban counties in the year following a triennial revaluation, so this type of prolonged delay is quite uncommon).

There is no language in the bill about its effective date, upon our initial review, and thus it would seem its effective date would be 91 days after it becomes law (under the Ohio Constitution).  Thus, some of these provisions (pursuit of appeals, for example) could have an impact on valuation complaints and school board counterclaims filed in calendar year 2022.

We will promptly update this blog when Governor DeWine either vetoes or signs the legislation into law. He has 10 days to act, or the bill automatically becomes law.

Read more about the legislation here:

Read the actual legislation here. Contact Chris Finney (513.943.6655) if you have questions about the legislation or desire to pursue or defend against an Ohio or Kentucky property tax valuation challenge.

 

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.

 

Team Finney notches big unanimous victory in jury trial versus Ohio Civil Rights Commission

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

Truth can be stranger than fiction.  And the last few weeks at the Finney Law Firm that has been the case.

Yesterday, Chris Finney, Jessica Gibson and Julie Gugino racked up a unanimous jury verdict (8-0) to defeat a case of claimed retaliation in response to a tenant’s claimed request for a disability accommodation that was met with a non-renewal of a residential lease.  The case was styled Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. Abundant Life Faith Fellowship in front of Judge Christian Jenkins in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court.  The Civil Rights Commission was also suing the Church’s pastor who had served for 41 years.  In candor, the Civil Rights Commission did a terrible job of vetting its own case with a terrible, dishonest plaintiff and a very sympathetic defendant.  Its attorneys at trial also were not exactly prepared or stellar.

The Civil Rights Commission case was full of demonstrable untruths about a kind-hearted 74-year-old African American minister who had suffered two strokes.  By the testimony of two of her fellow tenants in the building, the complaining tenant had plotted starting fewer than two weeks into her tenancy to drum up a fictitious lawsuit against the landlord as a way to extract money from him — she told this to her fellow tenants.  And for a year, she made his life a living hell, with incessant complaints about inadequate heat and fabrication about needing more light for a vision disability (in fact, her complaints about lighting had been adequately addressed early in her tenancy).  Dozens of complaints were addressed by visits by with servicemen, engineers, and repairmen to cater to her many whims and incessant gripes.  The Cincinnati Health Department came out and confirmed the unit in every room was heated to a comfortable 72°F to 73°F (the tenant lied to the jury — never a good idea — and said the readings were 62°F, 64°F and 66°F).

In the funniest part of the trial, the tenant at first denied and then admitted sending a bizarre text message to the landlord in the depth of winter, after he noticed that the windows of every unit in the building were open, including those of the tenant who constantly complained it was too cold!  Here is the text message, grammatical errors and misspellings included:

Yes, her crazy assertion to the landlord was that he must maintain the heat in the unit at 70°F even if the windows of the unit are left open!

Of course Pastor Brown and the Church had to fund the 4-year defense of the Civil Rights Administrative Complaint and the lawsuit, which he did with aplomb, but at great expense.  For the benefit of all landlords subject to outrageous prosecutions from obstinate public agencies, he saw this case through to its appropriate and proper end.  He refused to be bullied by the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, the office of the Ohio Attorney General and Housing Opportunities Made Equal (H.O.M.E.) (which manufactured evidence and knowingly lied to the Civil Rights Commissions in “building their case”).

For more information or to avoid being bullied by these same agencies: (a) DO NOT TALK TO THEM in an investigation EVER and (b) contact Jessica Gibson  (513.943.5677) for assistance with your 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!

Brad Gibson, Chris Finney named 2022 “Super Lawyers”

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

We most value the accolades and appreciation from our clients, but the various legal ratings services are pretty much unanimous that the Finney Law Firm attorneys are superior in their various fields.  The latest of these comes from SuperLawyers, a Thompson Reuters rating system.

This year, attorney Bradley M. Gibson was recognized for his skills in the Civil Litigation Category, and Finney Law Firm founder Christopher P. Finney was honored for his work in each of his disciplines of Business Litigation, Land Use/Zoning, Real Estate, Constitutional Law, State, Local & Municipal, and Tax.  Each of them are licensed to appear before all Courts in the State of Ohio and the Commonwealth of Kentucky and in the Federal District Court and Appellate Courts in Ohio.  Mr. Finney is also licensed before the United States Supreme Court, U.S. Tax Court and in the District of Columbia.

Let us know how we can apply our experience and skill to “Make a Difference” for your legal needs.

New Mediation Rules May Revamp Civil Litigation in Kentucky

Author By Todd McMurtryPosted on

Mediation, a quicker and more cost-effective alternative to litigation, has long been a voluntary option for parties in civil disputes. Now, the Kentucky Supreme Court has adopted rule changes that make court-ordered mediation commonplace in the litigation process. As a result, more lawsuits are likely to be resolved by this method.

The new rules, which took effect on Feb. 1, 2022, give courts the authority to refer all or part of a civil case to mediation and to appoint a mediator — a neutral third party who helps settle some or all of the contested issues. The mediation will remain fully independent of, and outside of, the court proceeding but the court has the discretion to enforce its order to mediate.

In deciding whether to order mediation, the court is required to consider these factors:

  • The stage of the litigation, including whether discovery has been conducted
  • The nature of the issues to be resolved
  • The value to the parties of confidentiality, rapid resolution or maintenance of ongoing relationships
  • The willingness of the parties to mutually resolve their dispute
  • Other attempts at dispute resolution that may have been made
  • The ability of the parties to participate in the mediation process, including virtual mediation
  • The cost to the parties

Mediation will not be ordered in any case where a court determines that one party may pose a risk of harm to others.

Once mediation is ordered, the litigants have 15 days to agree on a mediator and if they don’t, the court can select one. A mediator must be a Kentucky lawyer and comply with a code of conduct that, among other things, requires them to remain competent in mediation skills. Payment of the mediator’s fees is typically shared among the parties. The attorneys for the parties schedule a mediation conference. The mediator confers with the attorneys (and any unrepresented parties) to work out procedures for the conference and may require them to submit confidential statements of the case in advance. The parties’ representatives at the conference must have full authority to negotiate a settlement.

Although mediation is a separate process, the court must be kept advised of its progress. The parties are required to submit a joint statement to the court enumerating the issues that have been resolved and those that remain for trial. The parties may also identify any matters that, if resolved or completed, would facilitate a settlement. The court in its discretion may encourage the parties to continue discussions, with the goal of avoiding or limiting a trial.

About Finney Law Firm, LLC

Founded in 2014, FLF has grown to 15 attorneys located in offices in Eastgate and downtown Cincinnati with five major practice areas: Corporate Law, Real Estate Law, Employment Law, Commercial Litigation and Public Interest and Constitutional Litigation.  FLF has the unique claim to three 9-0 victories at the United States Supreme Court for its public interest practice along with breakthrough class action work.

FLF also has an affiliated title insurance company, Ivy Pointe Title, LLC, that closes and insures nearly a thousand commercial and residential real estate transactions annually.

For more information about Finney Law Firm, visit finneylawfirm.com.

Media Contact: Mickey McClanahan; mickey@finneylawfirm.isoc.net; 513.797.2850.

 

Small Business Solutions

Ohio Employment Law: Employment discrimination laws are about more than just firings.

Author By Stephen E. ImmPosted on

If you see a headline about a jury verdict in an employment case, it’s likely to be about a case where an employee was fired. Those are the cases where the impact of discrimination can be the most harmful. A wrongful firing can often cause enormous financial and emotional distress to a family, and the jury verdicts in such cases can sometimes be eye-popping.

But people often forget that federal and state employment laws prohibit discrimination at ALL phases of the employment relationship. They apply at the hiring stage as much as at the termination stage. And they also apply at various stages DURING the employment relationship. When employers make decisions about promotions, for instance, they are required to give opportunities without regard to race, sex, age, disability, etc. The same is true for decisions about pay. Employees cannot be denied raises or other benefits based on these characteristics.

Another example is training. And this can be key. If an employee is denied training opportunities, that in turn can lead to being denied opportunities for advancement later on. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, and comparable state laws, provide that employers must not discriminate when making decisions about which employees will be given the chance to learn new skills.

Employers are often mindful of anti-discrimination laws when preparing to terminate employees. They tend to be most fearful of lawsuits when making those kinds of momentous decisions. They sometimes are less careful, however, when making other kinds of employment decisions, and that lack of care can come back to haunt them. Their hiring, promotion, and pay practices and processes are very important as well, and can expose them to significant legal liabilities if they are not even-handed in their application.

Employers are well-advised to have good legal counsel review these process and procedures And employees should be mindful that they have the right to be free from illegal discrimination not just at termination, but at all phases of the employment relationship.

Ohio Employment Law: What if an employer breaks a promise to an employee?

Author By Stephen E. ImmPosted on

In the law, people aren’t always held to the promises they make. “I promise I’ll marry you,” or “I promise I’ll buy you a car,” are examples of promises the law usually will not enforce.

We are taught to live up to our promises, but in the law a promise is not normally enforceable unless the person making the promise receives something in exchange. If there is an exchange of promises the law usually considers that a contract. In the absence of a contract, however, a promise usually can’t be enforced at law.

But there is an exception. This is called “promissory estoppel.” This phrase means that sometimes a person will be stopped (“estopped”) from breaking a promise they made, even if there was not a contract.

This doctrine can have an interesting application in the field of employment law. If an employer promises an employee something, and the employee takes some action to his or her detriment in reliance on that promise, the employer may be held to the promise it made.

For instance, say an employer is trying to hire someone away from another employer. To get her to come on board the employer promises that the employees will be hired for at least two years. If the employee leaves her former employer in reliance on the promise of at least a two-year employment, and if that reliance is reasonable, the employer can be held legally liable if it breaks the promise, even though there was never a contract made.

Another example is when an employer promises an employee a raise and promotion if he transfers to a different city. If the employee uproots his family and moves across country in reliance on that promise, the employer risks a lawsuit for promissory estoppel if it doesn’t live up to what it told the employee about the raise and promotion.

We are often told to “get it in writing” when it comes to promises of future benefits. That’s good advice. But sometimes promises can be enforceable even if they are not made in written form, and even if they do no come in the form of a contract.

1 … 15 16 17 18 19 … 105