If you live in an Ohio condominium or homeowner’s association (HOA) you are part of a community that is governed by laws, regulations, bylaws, and a board of directors. The board of directors handles everything from budgets to maintenance decisions to what kind of decorations you can put up at Halloween. These decisions are made by the association’s board, but they are not meant to happen behind closed doors.

Ohio law gives association members/property owners the right to access many of the records the board keeps which helps ensure both transparency and accountability.

Regardless of if you are curious about how your association spends assessment funds, you want to review meeting minutes or simply wish to better understand your community’s rules, it is imperative to know what records you are entitled to see and what information the board can legally withhold.

From where your rights come 

Under the Ohio Revised Code, two different laws protect your ability to see association records: The Condominium Property Act (O.R.C. 5311.091) and the Planned Community Law (O.R.C. 5312.07). While these laws are worded differently, the idea is the same: you, as a member of these organizations, have the right to look at the records your association keeps. However, these laws also allow the board to set reasonable rules around how you can inspect records such as by scheduling a time during regular business hours or charging a fee for copies.

What are you entitled to see (and what you are not)

Generally, a resident in a community governed by an association can review documents that show how the community is being run and how money is being spent. This includes financial statements, budgets, and records of assessments collected and bills paid. Further, meeting minutes are open for inspection once they have been approved as well as the community’s governing documents such as their declaration, bylaws, and any rules or regulations that the board has adopted. Generally, contracts with service providers like insurance carriers, maintenance crews, and landscaping companies are also fair game.

However, your ability to view your Associations records are limited. Boards are entitled to keep certain information confidential. Residents in an Association cannot review personnel files for employees, communications with the association’s attorney, or documents tied to ongoing contract negotiations. Records about enforcement actions against other owners are also off -limits (unless explicitly allowed by the by-laws). Finally, a resident cannot demand records older than five years. These restrictions exist to protect privacy, preserve legal strategy, and to avoid undermining the association’s business dealings.

How to appropriately request records

In Ohio, the governing documents of the Association will explain exactly how to make a request for records. Most Associations require requests to be made in writing, but even if they don’t, it t is best practice to put your request in writing and be as specific as possible as to what you are asking for. Association Boards are allowed to set reasonable procedures for access, so you have to be prepared to work within their scheduling guidelines and to cover any costs associated with copying costs.

In most cases, Boards will comply. However, if your request is denied you can follow up by referencing the specific sections of Ohio law that applies to your community. If they still refuse, consult an attorney for assistance and to understand your options.

What if the board refuses to provide records?

If the board won’t provide records, the first step is usually a written reminder of what Ohio law, or your governing documents, require. In many cases, that is enough to encourage compliance. If the refusal continues, owners may have no choice but to seek legal help.

When it comes to recovering attorney fees, Ohio courts follow what is known as the American Rule: each side pays its own legal cost. The only exceptions are when the association’s governing documents specifically allow fee recovery or when the court finds that the board acted in bad faith. Without one of those clear bases, even a successful records request lawsuit will leave an owner responsible for their own legal expenses.

Conclusion

Transparency in recordkeeping is not just a legal requirement, but it is an important part of keeping an association thriving. Having access to these documents allows residents, like you, to understand how decisions are made, how funds are managed, and if your association is complying with their own rules. It also keeps the board accountable to the people it serves: the owners.

 

In the law a “pro se” (Latin: “for one’s self”) litigant is someone (usually a non-attorney) representing themselves in Court.   Litigation attorneys and Judges are used to pro se civil litigants.  Some are fairly good; others are embarrassingly bad.  Judges usually bend over backwards to give them their day in Court and hear their arguments.  Usually pro se litigants just gum up the works (just like terrible attorneys), but every so often they score a victory.  Indeed, even though the United States Supreme Court grants writs of certiorari (accepts discretionary appeals) in fewer than 1% of all cases and it is one of the most competitive forums in which the most sophisticated litigation attorneys battle, a few years ago a pro se litigant obtained such a writ, the Mt. Everest climb of the litigation profession.

But, for better or worse, a new tool has now empowered pro se litigants: Artificial Intelligence that is writing the pleadings for them.  Our office is seeing something just short of an onslaught of new complaints, pleadings, motions, briefs and even notices of appeal and appellate briefs, all seemingly generated by AI for pro se litigants.

It’s a Brave New World in the Courts thanks to AI. Clients are cautioned that they will need to defend new actions and respond to motions and appeals just as those generated by counsel, competent and incompetent!

Buckle up.  It’s going to be a wild ride.

 

 

On August 26, Federal Judge Stephanie Bowman issued an important ruling in Finney Law Firm’s fight to get justice for former Cincinnati Fire Chief Mike Washington. Judge Bowman rejected the efforts of the City of Cincinnati and its City Manager, Sheryl Long, to have his claims dismissed on Summary Judgment.

The Court agreed with the arguments made by FLF attorneys Samantha Isaacs, Matt Okiishi, and Stephen Imm that Chief Washington had a Constitutionally protected interest in his employment, and that he did not receive the due process of law to which he was entitled before he was fired on March 24, 2023. You can read a copy of Judge Bowman’s opinion here.

Several issues remain to be decided at trial, but this is a key win for the Chief. FLF looks forward to the trial, and to achieving full vindication for Mike, a devoted public servant to the people of Cincinnati for 30 years.

You may read the decision here: Chief Washington decision

For assistance with your employment law matter, please reach out to any of Steve Imm (513.943.5678), Matt Okiishi (513.943.6659) or Samantha Isaacs (513,797.2859).

In fewer than three years, the Chinese-owned online shopping platform Temu has become immensely popular, with hundreds of millions of visits each month. The website is known for offering various types of products, including clothes and household goods, at a low cost. Though Temu continues to attract massive traffic, it has also drawn criticism for the quality of its products and the labor practices used by the site’s China-based suppliers, Now, the Kentucky Attorney General has taken legal action alleging that the e-commerce giant is illegally capturing and using customers’ personal information. 

The lawsuit filed by Attorney General Russell Coleman accuses Temu of violating the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act (KCPA) by collecting sensitive personally-identifiable information (PII) from users without their knowledge or consent. While the complaint notes that this activity in and of itself is unlawful, it also raises concerns based on the fact that Temu, and the company that owns it, are based in China. According to the Attorney General, this means that the Chinese government has access to the data captured from online shoppers.

Temu also allegedly designed its much-downloaded app to evade detection, further compounding privacy and security harms. According to the Attorney General, such intentional obfuscation not only undermines trust but also poses significant risks to consumers who are unaware of the extent to which their information is being exploited. Both Apple and Google have temporarily suspended the Temu app from their respective online stores due to privacy concerns before restoring it.  

State investigators have purportedly found that information gathered by Temu goes well beyond what is required to complete digital transactions, including WiFi network information and reports of other apps installed on users’ devices. The complaint characterizes the Temu app as a hacking mechanism. Other allegations in the complaint involve the sale of counterfeit merchandise and the misappropriation of trademarks owned by Kentucky entities. 

While the Temu case is obviously high-profile, small and large companies alike that do business in Kentucky need to be aware of the rules governing data collection. The state’s Consumer Data Protection Act goes into effect at the beginning of 2026 and might require significant changes in how a company handles privacy issues and obtains consent for the collection of personal information. If you are accused of laws governing online commerce or other legal standards, don’t hesitate to retain a business litigation attorney who can assess how the law applies to your case and counter the allegations brought against you. 

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.

 

In a perfect world, when an employee is injured on the job, the employee files for workers compensation, benefits are determined, and the employee returns to work when they are cleared to do so. But sometimes, employers view the risk of increased premiums as an unjust burden and terminate their injured worker for filing a claim. What, then, is an employee to do?

In Ohio, the law prohibits employers from discharging, demoting, reassigning, or otherwise punishing employees because they filed a claim for workers’ compensation. But employees have very little time to act on this claim, because the law requires an employee to deliver written notice of a claimed violation to the employer within 90 days of the retaliation. If the employee fails to perform this act, they forfeit the right to sue the employer for workers compensation retaliation.

Further, the employee must also file suit within 180 days of the date of the retaliatory act. This is one of the shortest statutes of limitations in the field of employment law.

Because of these very short time periods, employees who believe they have been fired or retaliated against for seeking workers’ compensation benefits should consider contacting qualified legal counsel as soon as possible to assess their case and protect their rights.

Contact Matt Okiishi (513.943.6659) if you may have such a claim.

Recently, the Cincinnati Business Courier was nice enough to run a photo spread of our new law firm offices and we have had hundreds of clients drive by or visit our new City-home of Finney Law Firm.  The project was more than $2 million invested in our offices and two apartments in the core of downtown Cincinnati, taking about three years to complete.

We undertook this project to invest in the City that has given so much to us, but also to deeply learn things our investor clients already know about real estate investing, financing and development, so we can share those lessons with other clients.  Here are a few things we learned:

  1. Patience is a virtue.  Things (plans, regulatory approvals, material orders and contractor work) are not going to happen overnight.
  2. Further, every project is a trade-off of three things: a) time, b) money and c) quality.  You can get two out of three, but it’s hard to get all three.
  3. You have to trust and respect your designers, architect, construction manager, contractors, materialmen, and laborers.  They know more about this business than you do.  And although I help clients address failed contractor relationships, I found the vast majority of the people I dealt with to be honest, qualified and quality-minded and very hard-working.  Indeed, they had to repeatedly push back on me (on time or money) to insist on high quality in the project execution.
  4. A lender pulled me aside as I was planning the financing of the project, and told me to avoid construction financing if at all possible.  Do it with cash.  Otherwise, the bank will be looking over your shoulder and slowing you down every step of the way.  He was right.  Avoiding that headache was key in the project’s success.  Obviously, this is not always possible, but great and unsolicited advice.
  5. The City was great to work with.  The Building Department (especially), the Historic Conservation Department, the Water Works, the Police.  At every juncture, I was awed at the cooperation and enthusiasm I received from City officials.
  6. Key incentives.  For this project, we employed key incentive packages which were incredibly valuable.
    • Cost segregation.  Again, an accountant friend told me to explore cost segregation on the project.  This is where an engineer’s study allows you to significantly accelerate deprecation on project components.  Over the years, I had heard of cost segregation studies, but I literally had no idea how incredibly valuable this approach can be, resulting in hundreds of thousands of additional early depreciation deductions.
    • Federal and State Historic tax credits.  Again, after I had purchased the building, a friend told me of state and federal historic tax credits (not deductions!).  These can pay for up to 45% of an historic project.  20% federal is more or less automatic, but the additional state credits (essentially a grant) are a competition and Cincinnati gets more than it’s fair share, so it is competitive.  We won both!
    •  City tax abatements, residential and commercial.  I had to jump thru a few hoops (cutting the building into condos and applying separately), but the City has generous (although slightly complicated) residential and commercial property tax abatement programs that every developer should get to know about.  They are readily attainable.
    • Port/Sales tax avoidance.  Our project was too small for the strategy to be effective, but another turn-key, money-saving program for County projects is to partner with the Port Authority to avoid sales taxes on all of your building components and materials.  For larger projects, it is a “must do.”

If you are embarking on a development project of your own, I am glad to share my contractor and materialmen list, the short-cuts and procedures I learned for each of project components.

 

Always topical, always timely, the Volokh Conspiracy today writes of Finney Law Firm and attorney Curt Hart’s win at a jury trial (pretty amazing thing for a First Amendment case) in Colorado Springs, Colorado.  Volokh covers it thoroughly here:  Jury Concludes Policy Banning Written Signs at School Board Meetings Was Unreasonable, Implemented in a Viewpoint-Based Way

Sincere congratulations to Curt Hartman on the big win, and for including us as co-counsel in the case.

On Friday, July 18, 2025, the Sixth Circuit issued a ruling reversing a trial court’s dismissal of our client Matthew Warman’s Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure claim against Mount St. Joseph University and its individual police officers. Attorney Matthew S. Okiishi has served as local and co-counsel to Ron Berutti of Murray-Nolan Berutti LLC (licensed in New York, New Jersey, and Kentucky) in this matter.

Mr. Warman ‘s lawsuit alleges that, while a student at MSJU, he was invited the campus police station to discuss his refusal to take the Covid-19 vaccine on religious and medical grounds. This “meeting” quickly turned sour. Over the course of an hour, Mr. Warman was taken to a back room and told, among other things, that he was not free to leave, that he was an “[expletive] idiot,”  “should get a new religion,” that his “beliefs were wrong,” and should “grow the [expletive] up and get the shot.”

Based on these facts, the Court of Appeals held that this conduct plausibly established a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The Court further held that MSJU and the individual officers involved could be subject to liability as “state actors” under 29 U.S.C. §1983, and that the university and officers were not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings. The Court further cast doubt on whether privately employed campus police officers can avail themselves of qualified immunity. The matter has been remanded to the trial court for continued litigation.

A copy of the decision in the case styled Warman v. Mount St. Joseph Univ., et al., is linked here. The opinion has been recommended for full publication, signifying its importance and significance.

On June 12, Judge Donald E. Oda II of the Warren County Court of Common Pleas ruled in favor of the sellers of a home, represented by attorneys Andrew Gray and Christopher Finney, dismissing claims for breach of contract and fraud made by their realtor. The sellers, a couple moving from their home in Warren County, had terminated their contract with the original realtor and eventually successfully sold their home with a new realtor. The original realtor was not paid a commission by the brokers in the transaction, and filed suit against his employer and the sellers.

Under Ohio Revised Code 4735.21, only a licensed real estate broker may file a lawsuit to collect commission or other compensation in connection with a real estate transaction, and a real estate sales person can only collect money in the name of their broker. In the lawsuit, however, the realtor, who was only a licensed real estate salesperson, only alleged his status as a realtor in the complaint.

After the Finney Law Firm and the attorneys for the broker both filed motions to dismiss the plaintiff realtor’s claims, the Court – only three days after the motion was fully briefed – dismissed the complaint in its entirety. First, all claims for breach of contract against the sellers were dismissed because seller’s contracts were with the broker alone, who brought no claims against the seller; additionally, the plaintiff realtor had no claims against sellers under R.C. 4735.21. Finally, all claims for fraud were dismissed because they were duplicates of the contractual claims.

This brings up several important points:

  • Being a “realtor” is not a status of licensure under Ohio law – it is only membership in the National Association of Realtors, or one of its local branches.
  • Licensure as a “real estate salesperson” or “real estate broker” is entirely separate from status as a realtor.
  • Any contracts that a consumer may have with a realtor or real estate salesperson are actually with the real estate broker; the real estate salesperson or realtor is only the “agent” of the broker.

The result may seem unfair at first but, upon reflection, the policy reasons for R.C. 4735.21 are relatively simple. Real estate brokers have a variety of salespersons in the field, showing, selling, leasing real estate. However, all of those funds are ultimately the responsibility of the broker themselves. In a real estate transaction, all funds are transmitted through the brokers; so, when a real estate salesperson is entitled to a commission, the payment of that commission is truly a matter between the broker and the salesperson, not between the salesperson and the parties to the transaction. R.C. 4735.21 is intended to prevent the employment compensation disputes between the brokers and salespersons from involving the parties to the transactions, which can range from large companies to individuals buying, selling, or renting a home.

Regardless of the reasoning, the case represents another victory and successful result for our clients.

 

This week, Governor Mike DeWine signed Ohio’s state operating budget into law—marking a major win for Ohio taxpayers and small businesses, thanks to the dedicated efforts of Finney Law Firm and our client, the Ohio Deputy Registrar’s Association (ODRA).

Many Ohioans may not realize that local Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) offices are not run by the state, but by privately owned small businesses known as Deputy Registrars. This innovative, privatized model saves Ohio taxpayers more than $215 million annually, while keeping service costs low and customer satisfaction high. For example, registering a 2024 Chevy Blazer in Ohio costs just $36 to $66—compared to $300 in Kentucky and over $400 in Indiana.

But this successful model has been under strain. The fees Deputy Registrars earn per transaction are set by state statute and have not kept pace with rising labor and operating costs. As a result, some local BMV offices have been forced to close, leading to longer drives and wait times for Ohio residents.

On behalf of ODRA, Finney Law Firm led a months-long, statewide advocacy campaign to secure a $3 fee adjustment for Deputy Registrars. Our approach combined direct legislative advocacy with strategic grassroots and grasstops mobilization, training Deputy Registrars across Ohio to engage their communities and legislators.

The result: a bipartisan policy solution that stabilizes the Deputy Registrar system, preserves a cost-effective service model, protects access for Ohioans, and continues to save the state millions.

I had the privilege of serving as Finney Law Firm’s lead on this initiative, working closely with ODRA and dozens of small business owners across the state. This victory reaffirms what we believe is the most effective model for state and local policy change: a combination of expert legal and policy strategy, direct advocacy, and strategic grassroots and grasstops advocacy.

Rebecca Simpson is an attorney and seasoned government and public affairs strategist at Finney Law Firm. If you need support with community engagement, coalition building, or advocacy at the state or local level, you can reach her at Rebecca@dev.finneylawfirm.com.