Hi, How Can We Help You?

Blog

Ohio Supreme Court Issues Instructive Decision in Property Valuation Case

Author By Finney Law FirmPosted on

In a unanimous per curiam opinion, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that even when there is a recent arm’s-length sale, appraisal evidence of value should be considered to contradict the sale price.

In Spirit Master Funding IX, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-4302, the subject property was sold twice in 2014, one in August for $2,925,880; and again in December for $3,439,0290. The property was not subject to a lease at the time of the first sale, but was subject to a 20 year lease at the time of the second.

The Board of Tax Appeals adopted the August sale price as the true value, disregarding an appraiser’s opinion that the property’s true value as of January 1, 2014 was $1,535,000. The Board of Tax Appeals accepted the school board’s argument that the property owner did not dispute that the August 2014 sale was arm’s length, believing that question to be dispositive.

“The school board’s argument ignores the fact that appraisal evidence can both attack a sale price as evidence of true value and provide affirmative evidence of value in its own right” Spirit Master Funding IX, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-4302, ¶ 9.

The case has been remanded to the Board of Tax Appeals to give consideration to the testimony and report of the property owner’s appraiser.

This decision continues a trend at the Ohio Supreme Court to give force to the recent changes to Ohio’s property valuation regime.

[scribd id=391703744 key=key-quEt4LYEdGFPOQsW6gIS mode=scroll]

Supreme Court Orders Expedited Response in Pureval Lawsuit

Author By Finney Law FirmPosted on

The Ohio Supreme Court has ordered the Ohio Elections Commission to file its response to Aftab Pureval’s emergency motion to halt the investigation into his campaign finance violations by noon on Friday, October 26, 2018.

In addition to the filing at the Ohio Supreme Court, Pureval has filed yet another motion with the Ohio Elections Commission seeking to delay the hearing until after the election. Pureval is desperate to prevent the voters from scrutinizing his campaign spending before the election.

The Order from the Ohio Supreme Court and the latest filing at the Ohio Elections Commission are below and available online here and here.

Read more about Pureval’s efforts to avoid accountability in this matter here, here, and here.

[scribd id=391554552 key=key-8tlJQBFvfE52DYnNYFrE mode=scroll]

[scribd id=391554882 key=key-FYFu2fi2K27jm5fhoAxT mode=scroll]

Pureval Seeks Fifth Bite at the Apple to Delay Elections Commission Investigation

Author By Finney Law FirmPosted on

Fresh off a loss at the Tenth District Court of Appeals, Aftab Pureval has filed an appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court seeking to halt the Ohio Elections Commission investigation into campaign finance violations by his Clerk of Courts Campaign.

This will be the Pureval’s fifth attempt at halting the investigation; having lost this argument three times before the Elections Commission and once at the Court of Appeals.

It appears that Pureval is desperate to avoid sunshine and public scrutiny of his campaign finance violations.

Read the notice of Appeal below and  here and Motion for Expedited Proceedings here.

[scribd id=391512617 key=key-AUmX4ltuRpSlbeYV8auJ mode=scroll]

Ohio Employment Law: Can an employee be fired for legally using medical marijuana?

Author By Stephen E. ImmPosted on

As with many other states, Ohio now permits its citizens to consume marijuana legally if it is validly prescribed by a physician for a medical condition. The question arises as to whether this has any implications for employment. Are employees who use medically prescribed marijuana protected from discharge for their marijuana usage? Are employers still permitted to have and enforce a “drug-free workplace” policy if it prohibits the consumption of legal, medically prescribed marijuana?

The legislation establishing Ohio’s medical marijuana law expressly protects employers in several ways. Employers are not required to permit or accommodate an employee’s use, possession, or distribution of medical marijuana. They may refuse to hire an individual due to his or her use, possession, or distribution of medical marijuana, and may discharge or otherwise discipline an existing employee for such use, possession, or distribution.

Employers may also establish or maintain a formal drug-free workplace program. And an employer may still discharge an employee for “just cause” if the employee uses medical marijuana in violation of the employer’s drug-free workplace policy. Moreover, the employee will be ineligible for unemployment compensation if the termination resulted from a violation of the employer’s drug-free workplace policy.

The administrator of workers’ compensation may still grant rebates and discounts on premium rates to employers that participate in a drug-free workplace program, and an employer maintains the right to defend against workers’ compensation claims where use of medical marijuana contributes to or results in injury.

Employers and employees should be aware, however, that the usage of medically prescribed marijuana can intersect with federal and state laws that prohibit disability discrimination, and that require employers to reasonably accommodate employee disabilities. If an employee uses medically prescribed marijuana as a result of having a disability, an employer considering an adverse employment action against such an employee must make it clear that the action is based on the employee’s marijuana usage, and not on the underlying disability that led to that usage.

This can be a very tricky area for employers and employees to navigate. If you have questions about a particular situation, or need help in crafting an appropriate employment policy, it is important to seek the guidance of a qualified employment attorney. And be careful out there!

Transcript of Board of Elections Special Meeting Released

Author By Finney Law FirmPosted on

The Hamilton County Board of Elections released a transcript of this mornings meeting. Read the transcript on scribd here or below.

Also released was a new filing by the Aftab Pureval campaign – the unredacted checks showing that the $16,500 payment to GBA Strategies – a DC polling firm – was indeed for polling, not “consulting.” View the checks here or below.

These documents prove the truth of the complaint filed by Finney Law Firm with the Ohio Elections Commission and highlight the need for a full investigation by the Ohio Elections Commission.

The Ohio Elections Commission will hold its probable cause hearing Thursday, September 20, at 10 a.m. in the Riffe Center in Columbus, Ohio. We look forward to a full adjudication of our complaint.

[scribd id=389019696 key=key-VS2cKJSocVRDEjl6dLRA mode=scroll]

[scribd id=389020381 key=key-C1F87086Nlqpb6nTxlSa mode=scroll]

 

Corruption at Hamilton County Board of Elections?

Author By Finney Law FirmPosted on

The Cincinnati Enquirer is reporting that the Hamilton County Board of Elections is opening its own investigation into Aftab Pureval’s campaign finance reporting, and the history of the redactions to checks filed by his campaign.

The controversy has erupted in response to Pureval’s claim that a Board of Elections employees made redactions to his campaign.

Now it appears that in fact, a Democrat Board of Elections employee did illegally alter public records to prevent disclosure of the information contained on the memo line of one check in particular.

One check, paid to GBA Strategies out of Washington, D.C. appears to read “Poll…” beneath the redaction. Such an expenditure by the clerk of courts campaign (nearly three years before the election) would be quite unusual. It is believed that the payment was made for polling done for Pureval’s congressional race, a violation of state and federal campaign finance laws.

The Board of Elections sole purpise to create and maintain records – be they campaign finance records, or more integral to our system of governance, election records. There are now very real questions about the integrity of the Board of Elections recordkeeping functions. The Board of Elections must determine whether Pureval’s campaign was involved in the decision to illegally redact his campaign finance filings, so that Hamilton County voters can be confident in the results reported by the Hamilton County Board of Elections.

The Hamilton County Board of Elections will hold a special emergency meeting on Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 11 a.m. to investigate further, That meeting will be at 4700 Smith Road, Cincinnati, Ohio 45212. The public and media is invited to attend.

Read the Ohio Elections Commission Complaint here.

Read Pureval’s response, including the statement that the Board of Election redacted the memo line here.

Employment Law: Can an employer make deductions from employee wages?

Author By Matthew S. OkiishiPosted on

Can an employer make deductions from employee wages?

On the face it, the answer seems obvious: Of course! Employers make deductions from employee wages on a routine basis. Common examples that come to mind are for federal and state tax withholdings, or for court-ordered garnishments. Sometimes, employees authorize other deductions, such as for insurance or union dues. All of these examples share a common trait: They exist for the benefit of the employee or a third party.

But what about when an employer unilaterally docks an employee’s wages for items that benefit the employer, such as for a uniform, a background check, or for damage to employer property caused by an employee?

Generally, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the law governing wages on a federal level, permits unilateral deductions that benefit the employer provided that those deductions do not reduce the employee’s wages below the minimum wage. This rule applies to both overtime non-exempt and exempt salaried employees, and employers who routinely reduce the wages of salary exempt employees below the federal requirement of $455 per week run the risk of losing the exemption.

While federal law may permit deductions from employee wages, applicable state laws can and often do restrict the ability of employers to make deductions that benefit the employer.  Ohio law prohibits employers from reducing the wages of employees for tools, damaged machinery, and uniforms absent written agreement with the employee. Going further than Ohio, Kentucky prohibits employers from deducting wages for things like breakage or property damage even when the employee authorizes the deduction. And of course, in both Ohio and Kentucky, employers should be wary of making deductions that reduce an employee’s wage to below the minimum wage.

The legality of deductions from employee wages is fact specific. Both employers and employees should be wary of wage deductions, as overzealous deductions could prove costly for pocketbooks and bottom lines.

Ohio Employment Law: Can an Employee ever get Unemployment Compensation After Quitting?

Author By Stephen E. ImmPosted on

In general, unemployment compensation is intended to provide relief for employees who involuntarily lose their jobs through no fault of their own. Ordinarily, therefore, employees who leave their jobs of their own accord do not receive unemployment benefits. But is there ever a circumstance when an employee can get unemployment after quitting or resigning?

The answer is yes. The law provides that if an employee quits “with just cause,” he or she can qualify for unemployment compensation benefits. What constitutes “just cause” for quitting one’s job? There are several ways in which this can occur.

First, there is the situation where an employee resigns because he or she is about to be discharged. The law provides that an employee who submits a resignation in lieu of being discharged is not disqualified from receiving benefits simply by virtue of the fact that he or she technically “resigned” his or her employment. An employee who is essentially told, “Resign or you will be fired,” can still get unemployment after resigning.

Secondly, if an employee’s terms or conditions of employment are made intolerable, that can constitute “just cause” for quitting. A good example of this is if an employee is forced to work in an atmosphere of pervasive sexual harassment that the employer refuses or fails to correct. In order to get unemployment in these circumstances, the employee will normally have to show that he or she first reported the intolerable working conditions, and gave the employer a fair opportunity to correct them.

Thirdly, if the employer makes significant changes to the employee’s compensation, or to key aspects of the employee’s job, and if those changes are disadvantageous to the employee, this can give the employee “just cause” to resign, and thus qualify him or her to receive unemployment after doing so. Some examples of this would be if an employee receives a demotion, or experiences a significant cut in pay, or if the employer imposes a significant travel requirement in the job that the employee previously did not have.

Like so much else in the law, the question of whether or not an employee can receive unemployment compensation when they resign is not always clear, cut and dried. Both employers and employees can benefit from having good legal counsel when confronted by these issues.

Hearing Set for Campaign Finance Complaint Against Pureval

Author By Finney Law FirmPosted on

The Ohio Elections Commission has scheduled a preliminary review hearing on Finney Law Firm’s complaint alleging several and serial violations of Ohio campaign finance law by Aftab Pureval, his clerk of courts campaign committee, and its treasurer, Evan Nolan.

The hearing is scheduled for September 20, 2018 at 10 a.m. at the Ohio Elections Commission headquarters in Columbus, Ohio.

After reviewing the documents submitted, the Commission will decide to either: 1) find no violation; 2) find that there has been a violation; or 3) set the case for a full hearing to obtain additional testimony and evidence.

We appreciate that the Commission is taking this matter seriously and look forward to presenting our evidence in September. In the meantime, we anxiously await Mr. Pureval’s formal response to the charges.

Read the complaint online here.

[scribd id=386371224 key=key-A8VXnPRDnObSKBfg2tvx mode=scroll]

Finney Law Firm Files Elections Commission Complaint Against Pureval

Author By Finney Law FirmPosted on

Finney law firm filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission against Aftab Pureval, his campaign committee, and the treasurer, Evan Nolan.

The complaint points to receipts and expenditures by his Clerk of Courts Campaign that are obviously related to his congressional run. Federal and State law prohibit redirecting state campaign funds to a federal campaign.

Federal law limits contributions to Pureval’s federal campaign to $5,400, but contributions to the clerk of court’s campaign are unlimited. In an effort to take advantage of Ohio’s lack of contribution limits for clerk of courts campaigns, this year alone Pureval’s mother has donated $30,000 to the clerk of court’s campaign, and almost all of that money has been spent in support of Pureval’s congressional race.

But even before he announced his run for Congress, Pureval was spending his clerk of court’s campaign funds improperly. In the summer of 2017, just after taking his current job, he was traveling across the country testing the waters for a Congressional run. Those travel costs included airfare and a hotel stays in Washington, D.C., Atlanta, Georgia.

As first reported in this Cincinnati Enquirer story, dual campaigns can be legal, but the two must remain separate. While Pureval’s D.C. attorneys suggest that “dividing” costs can be done legally, a review of the state and federal campaign reports makes clear that the two campaigns are not dividing joint costs;  the clerk of court’s campaign account has simply been placed into the service of the congressional campaign.

Since announcing his run for Congress, Pureval has used his clerk of court’s campaign fund to pay for a photographer to document his congressional campaign kickoff (footage that has been used in his campaign commercials); $16,000 for polling; a congressional campaign staffer; and thousands of dollars for travel.

The complaint, filed with the Ohio Election Commission on Friday,  sets forth violations of three sections of Ohio campaign finance law: converting contributions to clerk of courts campaign to the use of the federal campaign, and to other third parties; failure to file accurate reports of receipts; and failure to file accurate reports of expenditures.

In 2017, An Ohio judge was sentenced to ten days in jail for improper expenditures from his campaign account, paying for expensive meals and cigars.

Also in 2017, a California man was sentenced to one year in prison after organizing a money laundering scheme to support his son’s run for Congress.

We expect that a full investigation will reveal that this was not a mere “bookkeeping mistake” or “dividing costs” but was part of a calculated plan to evade federal and state campaign finance laws and illegally finance his congressional race.

Read the complaint on Scribd here or below.

Read the Cincinnati Enquirer’s coverage here.

[scribd id=386040687 key=key-Gb40Ap9FBSCMLYCl00C4 mode=scroll]

1 … 45 46 47 48 49 … 105