The Finney Law Firm has an extensive practice in property tax valuation work, assisting property owners in correcting the valuation of over-assessed properties in Ohio by the County Auditor and in Kentucky by the Property Valuation Administrator.  Since its founding, this firm has filed and won (or advantageously settled) more than 300 such Complaints, including for major corporate clients as well as small investors and individual homeowners.

We can either charge for this work at our standard hourly rate (plus expenses) or on creative contingent fee and fixed fee formulations.

This year, the Warren County Auditor has re-assessed all parcels in that County, and since this is the first year of the tri-ennial cycle, every property owner there has the right to challenge that valuation. We are in the second year of that cycle in Hamilton, Clermont and Butler Counties.

Read here about this year’s Property Tax Valuation class before the Cincinnati Area Board of Realtors.

Finally, watch here the on-line video wherein Attorney Chris Finney shares with you the step-by-step method you can appeal a tax valuation in Ohio on your own.

Today’s NYT contains yet more preemptive gnashing of teeth about the claimed radically-conservative U.S. Supreme Court: Scalia’s Putsch at the Supreme Court.

  • posted: Jan. 20, 2016
  • Hemmer DeFrank Wessels PLLC
  • Uncategorized

Written By: Scott R. Thomas

Few things have a more costly and damaging effect on all aspects of a business than a sexual harassment complaint.  Legal costs are incurred to respond to inquiries from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  If the matter is not resolved there, costs escalate as the matter proceeds to litigation.  Even with federal limits, exposure under state law claims can be high, as plaintiffs plead their claims in alternative ways such as assault and battery, infliction of emotional distress, negligent supervision, etc.  Many of these claims carry the specter of punitive damages.  On top of that, most insurance policies exclude sexual harassment claims from the scope of coverage so the Company is totally exposed.  The litigation creates significant indirect costs associated with the loss of productivity of having company personnel appear in court, sit for depositions, meet with counsel, etc.   If the claim garners media attention, the cost to the business can be devastating. For all of these reasons, it becomes critical to investigate the claim properly from the moment it is made.  A good investigation will position the company for optimum results in every forum at every stage.  A shoddy investigation, on the other hand, will make matters worse and perhaps increase the company’s exposure.

Do it Now.  Since the courts require the employer to take prompt remedial action, it is imperative that the employer respond immediately to a claim of sexual harassment. Prompt investigation must be taken. In one case a supervisor delayed an investigation for one day, 24 hours, and a court held that was not quick enough. “Prompt” apparently means less than 24 hours; “prompt” means “right now.” Managers and supervisors will most often state that they have other things to do, such as get production out, respond to customer complaints, whatever, but as far as the courts are concerned, once a complaint of sexual harassment is lodged, the supervisor must take immediate action to respond.

Just Do It.  A Company who receives a complaint of harassment against must proceed to investigate the complaint, even if the complaint is believed to be false.   The investigator’s personal views on whether a factual basis for the complaint exists does not factor into the equation.  Conversely, the victim doesn’t get to call off the investigation.     The Company has an affirmative duty to investigate whenever a complaint is made, regardless of whether the victim has agreed to the investigation.   When the Company learns of sexual harassment, an investigation must be conducted even if no complaint is made.  In some cases, the victim may say they only wanted the Company to know about it but don’t want to make a “formal complaint,” whatever that is.  The victim has no veto power.  When the Company learns the facts, it must investigate.  Explain this to the victim.  This alleged violation of federal and state law must be addressed.  Understand that plaintiff lawyers know this rule and will bury a Company that ignores a sexual harassment report at the victim’s request.

Do it by the Book.    By “the book,” I mean your Company’s  Employee Handbook.  If you don’t have one, set aside the time to write one.  The Employee Handbook should set forth the Company’s policy that sexual harassment in any form will not be tolerated.  The policy should also state the procedures that a victim of sexual harassment can follow to report the incident without fear of retaliation so that the conduct can be investigated and the Company can take appropriate corrective action.   The U.S. Supreme Court has encouraged employers to take this step by giving them an affirmative defense to liability for a supervisor’s misconduct in certain circumstances.  If the Company has no policy, the defense is unavailable.  At any rate, the investigation should follow the pattern outlined in the Company’s policy.

 Make an Appointment.  The investigation should be initiated with an “appointment letter.”   The appointment letter should say that the Company is appointing the person to conduct an investigation into the complaint of sexual harassment made by Jane Smith on January 10, 2016.  If the complaint was made in writing, the complaint should be attached to the appointment letter.  Most important, the appointment letter should state: “The Company anticipates that this matter will result in litigation.  This investigation is being conducted for the purposes of assisting the Company’s attorney and provide a factual basis for counsel’s legal guidance to the Company.”  This will ensure that the fruits of the investigation will be covered by the attorney work product privilege.  That way, if litigation does not ensue, the Company will have grounds to contest turning over the investigation materials to opposing counsel.  Put the date and time on this appointment letter.  That will help the Company later show that the investigation was begun “promptly.”

 First Things First.  There are a few things that need to be done straight away.  In no particular order, these “first things” should be accomplished as soon as possible after getting the complaint.  Gather all documents that pertain to the event.  This may be a police report, a performance evaluation, an email string.  The initial intake of evidence may also include physical evidence, e.g., defaced personal property of the victim.  Collect these materials and safeguard them throughout the investigation.

 Protect the Victim.  This is an easy one but terribly important.  The last thing the Company wants is for someone to take action that could be perceived as a retaliation against the victim for making the report of sexual harassment.  Obviously, the alleged harasser has to be warned in no uncertain terms not to have any contact with the victim or communicate with the victim about the complaint.  In addition, other personnel need to be notified to suspend any action relating to the victim.  If the Company had been planning to cut the victim’s hours, put that on the back burner.  If the Company had decided to transfer the victim to another office before this sexual harassment claim broke, put it off till the dust settles.  You don’t want to strengthen a sexual harassment claim by taking action that can arguably be made to look adverse to the victim.  Trust the victim’s attorney to make it look like a punishment for reporting the misconduct.  This is the stuff punitive damages are made of.

 No Penalty for Holding.  Another first few hours action is to prepare what we call a “Litigation Hold.”  This is a simple letter instructing the appropriate personnel that all documents that may have some bearing on the investigation must be preserved.  The things to be preserved may vary with the circumstances of the particular case.  What must be avoided at all costs is the destruction, intentional or inadvertent, of any document, file, quest, thing, that turns out later to be relevant to the inquiry.  Lawyers call this “spoliation of evidence.”  That’s a fancy term to describe the concept that the judge or jury will be entitled to assume that the evidence that got destroyed would have been unfavorable to the party that failed to preserve it.  In some circumstances, this spoliation inference can give a lame case new legs.  Nothing good comes of lost evidence.  Get this letter out to supervisors, managers, human resources, the alleged harasser, the IT, and anybody who might possess something useful to the investigation.

 Freeze!  Ten minutes into any good cop show and you’ll hear the protagonist shout this command.  This is also a powerful tool at the Company’s disposal.  The Company wants to “freeze” the situation for purposes of the investigation.  You don’t want the challenged conduct to continue.  You don’t want the victim’s work to be interrupted.  Consider other interim corrective action that should be taken.  You may want to consider interim action should not appear to punish either the victim or the alleged harasser.  On the contrary, explain that the Company is taking this action to protect them both.  Such actions could include a non-disciplinary separation, potential leave with pay, temporary transfer of the alleged harasser (not the victim!), etc.  If the incident involves other misconduct or a violation of Company policy on the part of the harasser, e.g., drug use, drunkenness, immoral or indecent conduct, you could consider disciplinary action for those violations—separate and apart from any future determination of whether the conduct constituted sexual harassment.

 Call for Reinforcements.   Legal representation is expensive.  The Company wants to balance the cost of an attorney with the risk of going it alone.  Every Company has to make a personal decision in this regard.  I suggest the Company ask itself whether it’s likely that the complaint turns into a lawsuit.  If it seems likely to blossom into litigation, the Company is better off getting a lawyer sooner rather than later.  In my experience, if the victim accuses a senior member of management, or the allegations involve physical touching, you’re going to court.  Best to get an attorney at the earliest possible stage.

 Make No Promises.  An investigator will frequently tell the victim or a witness that statements made in the investigation are confidential.  This is a promise the investigator can’t keep.  The Company is not going to broadcast the investigation on the internet but lots of people have a need to know the information.  The most glaring example is that the Company must necessarily advise the harasser of the grounds for any discipline that flows from the investigation.  The investigator means well but the unkeepable promise creates unrealistic expectations.   When the promise is ultimately broken, the victim feels violated again and resents the Company, fueling a desire to take it to another level.  The investigator must tell the victim that disclosure of the information will be kept to the smallest group of Company personnel having a need to know.

 Talk to Me.  The guts of the investigation is the interview.  The investigator must interview every person with personal knowledge affecting the determination of whether sexual harassment occurred.  I recommend starting with the victim.  This may be done in one session or multiple sessions.  Get the victim to put the complaint in writing.  You need it as detailed as possible.  That will set the parameters.  Conclude the interview with a closer: “Have you told me all the facts regarding your complaint of sexual harassment against John Smith?”  Keep asking that question until you get it all.  Remember to put the date and time on every statement.

Keep in mind that some victims regret making a complaint and want it to end.  They don’t have the power to turn off the investigation.  They do, however, have the power to withhold information and cripple the investigation.  You still must go through with the investigation.  If the victim refuses to cooperate, however, that refusal must be documented in the report.  Make a note of questions the victim refused to answer.  Make the victim sign off on a statement that says she declined to provide additional information to aid the Company’s investigation.

Then move to the witnesses.  Don’t go straight to the alleged harasser.  Do that interview last, when your brain is full of all the knowledge imparted to you by the victim and all the witnesses.

Make each witness prepare a written statement.   Accurate records created during the investigation carry much more weight than deposition or trial testimony years later. Right or wrong, juries tend to give more weight to something that’s been reduced to writing.

If the witness created a document you collected earlier, make sure that witness’ statement notes that “the attachment is a true copy of the letter I received from the customer on July 2, 2015.”

The investigator’s questions should be open-ended.  Let the witness tell the story rather than putting words in the witness’ mouth.  What happened? What was said?  Where did it occur?  How was your work affected?  Are there any witnesses I should talk to?  Has this ever happened before?  Details?  How did you reacted to John Smith’s behavior/remarks?  Did you discuss this with anyone else?  Do you have any other evidence relating to the incident?  Are you aware of any reason for the conduct?  The witness’ statement must be reduced to writing.  Do not attempt to filter out what the witness wants to say.  You can evaluate later what weight to give to portions of a statement that you think may be unreliable, e.g., facts reported to the witness by another person but not personally observed.

The investigator should develop a checklist that can be used for each witness.  The checklist should end with a note to remind the witness that the matter is not to be discussed with anyone and that no retaliatory action against the victim will be tolerated.

The alleged harasser should be interviewed last.   You will then have the most information to evaluate whether the alleged harasser is providing truthful responses.  The alleged harasser may provide additional information that raises questions that must be put to the victim or other witnesses.  If the alleged harasser invokes the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, have the person record that in writing.

Search and Seizure.  The investigator may consider searching areas in which the person—victim, witness, or alleged harasser—has no expectation of privacy.  Hopefully, these areas are spelled out in the Employee Handbook.  These areas typically include spaces like the employee’s locker, desk, work phone, work computer, or other cubby hole.   The Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement only restricts the government, not private actors.  Depending on your Employee Handbook, you may also be able to search purses, back packs, briefcases, and other containers, provided the Company has given employees notice via the Employee Handbook or otherwise.

Turn over the Stones.  A good investigator will turn over stones looking for information that relates to the complaint.  In our times, many of these stones are electronic.  The investigator should examine whether the people involved have communicated regarding the events at hand using email, texts, Twitter, FaceBook, or other social media.

 Make the Call.   The investigator needs to document the investigation, summarize it, and draw conclusions.  This record is important because the Company can later use it to prove the employer acted responsibly and took prompt action.  In many circumstances, the case will boil down to the victim’s word against the alleged harasser’s word.  In lay terms, this “he said/she said” situation results in an impasse.  Wrong.  People go to prison every day based on the testimony of one person against another.  The investigator has to make the call.  If the claim of sexual harassment is proved, the investigator so concludes.  If not, the investigator so concludes.  That said, the investigator is not the final authority.  The Company, not the investigator, is the final arbiter of what happened.  The Company always has the authority to make a different determination based on the evidence collected by the investigator.  The Company has the power, not the investigator.

Slap the Wrists or Drop the Hammer.  If the investigator finds that sexual harassment occurred, appropriate sanctions must be imposed.  The conduct cannot be ignored.  Appropriate sanctions do not necessarily mean discharge. The punishment should fit the crime. A warning may be sufficient in some cases, particularly for a first offense. Under other circumstances, discharge may be necessary.   The Company’s prompt, remedial action to protect those rights when a violation has occurred will provide a powerful deterrent and enable the Company to maintain a successful defense if litigation follows.  The Company may consider: the harasser’s employment record; whether the harasser was aware of the Company’s policy; whether the harasser ignored the victim’s request that the harasser stop; what discipline, if any, has been imposed in the past.

Tie Up the Loose Ends.  The victim should be told that the matter has been investigated and what the Company has decided to do.  The investigation record is not considered a personnel file and should be maintained separately and confidentially.   Neither the victim nor the alleged harasser is entitled to a copy of the report.  The Company has an ongoing duty to insure that the harassment has stopped.  Even if the complaint is not sustained, the alleged harasser should be counseled to get his act together.

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.

 

  • posted: Jan. 19, 2016
  • Hemmer DeFrank Wessels PLLC
  • Uncategorized

Written By: Todd V. McMurtry

Foreclosures, criminals and divorces combined with chronic understaffing have clogged the courts.  If you have not been involved in a lawsuit in the past ten years or so, you should count your blessings.  In my opinion, because many states are functionally insolvent, they have understaffed and underfunded their courts.  The brave few who have agreed to serve as judges face large dockets with diminished resources.  The unfortunate few who need the aid of the state courts have to compete with the many forces shaping the legal system to have their case heard. 

Once a person finds themselves in court, it is often very difficult to get out without expending more money than the dispute is worth.  Legal fees for even a simple case can quickly run into the tens of thousands of dollars.  Petitions to the court, called motions, can drag on for months as the courts struggle to keep up with the paperwork associated with such arguments.  It is common for the party that does not want to pay what is due to drag the process out as long as possible and then use the delay as a bargaining chip to pay far less or demand more than is equitable. 

I advise every client that a case can take 12 to 18 months to get through the courts.  On top of that, an appeal can easily drag a case out for another two years.  If the case then goes to the state supreme court, it might take another 6 to 18 months to get a final judgment.  In the worst case scenario, a case can then be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings and it starts all over.  It is not uncommon for a case to take four to six years to reach a conclusion.  During that time, you have to pay your attorneys tens of thousands of dollars to keep your case on the move. 

I share this sobering reality because I strongly recommend that you make every effort to avoid state court as a means to resolve a dispute.  Instead, I recommend these three alternatives:

  • Limit involvement of legal counsel.
  • Choose binding arbitration.
  • Try pre-suit mediation.

Limit the involvement of legal counsel.  For a practicing trial attorney, this is tough advice to offer.  But, the truth is that disputes under $25,000 or so should be negotiated with limited involvement by attorneys.  Net of legal fees, a compromise in a one-on-one negotiation is often the best solution.  A good idea in this situation would be to consult with your attorney, but not have your attorney directly involved.  There may be something very important about your situation that you do not understand.  Buy an hour of your attorney’s time and make sure you understand what type of dispute you have.  As well, legal counsel can draft an agreement that will fully release whatever claims exist so both parties can put the matter permanently behind them. 

Choose binding arbitration.  Arbitration is faster.  Even more complex disputes can be resolved in months instead of years.  It is very hard to appeal an adverse arbitration award, so when it is over, it is usually over.  As well, you can use the courts to enforce any judgment you receive in arbitration.  Arbitration is more streamlined than state court proceedings.  You do have to pay an arbitrator to act as your private judge, but in most situations it will likely save money.  As well, since you can pick your own private judge, you can find someone with particular skill in a given area.  You hire a construction professional for a construction dispute, etc.  Ask your attorney to help you include a binding arbitration provision into contracts you sign. 

Try pre-suit mediation.  Let’s assume a circumstance where you have tried to negotiate a resolution with the opposing party, but failed.  Assume as well that your agreement does not require arbitration.  This means you are headed to state court.  At this point, it is almost always a good idea to hire a professional mediator to attempt a resolution before going into state court.  Your attorney can help you through this process and make it more effective.  The mediation process creates strong momentum for settlement and can overcome obstacles that may have blocked the success of direct negotiations.

A smart business should always try to avoid state court.  But, if your effort to be nice and resolve the problems through negotiation fails, then I recommend that you hire a real trial attorney and do battle!

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.

 

Tuesday of this week Finney Law Firm attorneys Isaac T. Heintz and W. Z. “Dylan” Sizemore present “5 Pillars of Success” for the Anderson Chamber of Commerce.

The course addresses the foundations of business success through carefully establishing and planning the success of your business with legal strategies in corporate law, real estate law and estate planning.

A video of the course will soon be available on line.

One of the core values of the Finney Law Firm is empowering the client in decision making on their legal matters, be they litigation or transactions.  From the law firm perspective, it takes a constant, repeated, and consistent effort to communicate the status and options to a client, and to empower the client to make decisions — good decisions — for the future of his legal affairs.

Chris Finney has been invited to present to fellow attorneys at the Cincinnati Bar Association’s “Brown Bag Luncheon” series with the topic “Empowering the Client in Decision making Along the Way” on Wednesday, February 10 from noon to 1 p.m.

We are proud to have developed and implemented aggressive strategies to place the client in the driver’s seat as a legal matter progresses.

For more information on this course, please contact the CBA at (513) 699-1397.

In Serafine v. Branaman, et al. the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that a Texas law proscribing one’s ability to claim to be a psychologist fails Constitutional muster in the context of a political campaign. The case is part of a national trend in the wake of the the Alvarez, Stolen Valor Act decision, apply strict scrutiny to speech that is arguably both “political” and “commercial.”

Dr. Serafine, an attorney who completed a four-year post doctoral fellowship at Yale and whose dissertation for her Ph.D. in education was published in a psychology journal, Genetic Psychology Monographs, ran for the Texas state senate in 2010. Previously, Serafine had been a professor in the psychology departments at Yale and Vassar, even though her lack of a doctorate in psychology prohibits her from receiving a license to practice as a psychologist. Nonetheless, Dr. Serafine referred to herself as a “psychologist” in her campaign materials and website, as she was known collegially and in her role as a professor of psychology as a psychologist notwithstanding her lack of the formal credentials.

During her 2010 campaign for the Texas State Senate, the Texas State Board of Examiners sent Serafine a letter informing her that her political materials referring to herself as a psychologist violated state law and ordered her to cease using the title “psychologist” on her campaign website. Ultimately, Dr. Serafine did remove the title “psychologist” from her campaign materials but brought suit against the chairman and executive director of the State Board of Examiners claiming that the Texas Psychologists’ Licensing Act violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Read the Court of Appeals decision here.

Read more from on the case from Eugene Volokh here.

Today, U.S.  District Court Judge Susan Dlott certified a class action in the lawsuit against the IRS for its illegal targeting of Tea Party groups.

The Finney Law Firm is proud to join lead attorney Eddie Greim of Graves Garrett in Kansas City and local attorney David Langdon in representing the Tea Party groups in this litigation.

The scandal, which broke into the news in the summer of 2013 with stories of how the IRS first segregated applications for tax exempt status from Tea Party groups and then subjected those applications to prolonged delays, intrusive questioning, and additional scrutiny that other groups seeking the same tax treatment did not receive.  Lois Lerner was widely identified as having conceived and advanced the discriminatory treatment of liberty groups.

The Wall Street Journal has today’s development here and the Cincinnati Enquirer has good coverage of the topic here.  Previously, Judge Dlott ruled in favor of the Tea Party groups in denying the government’s motion to dismiss the suit, and has compelled production of key evidence the government has sought to conceal.

 

A recent Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals case distinguishes implied assumption of the risk with the primary assumption of the risk/recreational activity defense discussed in an earlier post here, and recently at Eugene Volokh’s Washington Post blog here.

In July 2012 a spectator was injured by a foul ball at a Cleveland Indians game. As discussed in my earlier post, the Cleveland Indians would generally be immune from liability for the fan’s injuries. However, in Rawlins v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Company, Inc., 2015-Ohio-4587, the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Indians on the basis of the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk.

Reds fans may recall that during fireworks Fridays at the Reds games, the ushers and public address announcer wait until after the final out before asking fans near the fireworks to move from their seats. As Sam Wyche once said, “You don’t live in Cleveland.” The ushers at the Indians game may have jumped the gun in moving fans out of certain sections in preparation for the fireworks show. I say may have because there was conflicting testimony in depositions. The original complaint alleged that Rawlins was ordered from his seat, but during his deposition he testified that the usher merely stared at him with her hands on her hips, and that he had overheard other people saying the ushers were telling people to leave their seats.

Primary Assumption of the risk means that in activities which involve risk, each participant (or spectator) assumes the risk for any injury resulting from the risk associated with that injury. As the Court in this case referred to it, the Baseball Rule means that getting hit by a foul ball is a risk normally associated with going to a baseball game – whether you are sitting in your seat or walking to the refreshment stand (or being distracted by the San Diego Chicken). But, when you are being ordered to leave your seat before the final out of the game in preparation for the post-game fireworks show, the club has created a circumstance outside the normal routine of baseball game attendance. In those cases, the club may be liable for injuries resulting from being hit by a foul ball.

 

 

This firm was privileged to serve as class action co-counsel along with Maurice Thompson of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law and Paul DeMarco of the Cincinnati firm of Markovits, Stock and DeMarco in securing a refund of illegally-collected taxes levied by the Indian Hill School District for 2010 through 2014.  That legal team has settled claims for our clients relating to the over-assessment and payment of taxes totaling $5.5 million.
A recent article in the Cincinnati Enquirer about the law suit (Sanborn v. Indian Hill Local School District) and the settlement are here.
In the Spring of 2016, class members should be receiving notices from the Settlement Administrator about how to obtain their refund.  Taxpayers must respond in order to get their refund check.
  • PLEASE NOTE: If you or someone you know owned property in the Indian Hill School District for those years and have since sold the property, the Auditor’s Office, and therefore the Settlement Administrator, may not have your address and you may not be notified of your right to receive a refund.  In order to obtain notices about the refund, please be sure to contact the Settlement Administrator noted below and provide the following information: (a) your name and address, (b) the property you owned, and (c) the period you owned the property.
The class includes every property owner who paid the illegal levy for the years in question and includes both residential and commercial property owners.  The amount of the refund will vary by property and payor, but we estimate the average refund will exceed $800.
Here is what is going to transpire on this settlement:
    1. The court-appointed Settlement Administrator will send a letter to every class member who can be identified in the Spring.
    2. The Settlement Administrator will have calculated the pro-rata share of refund due to each taxpayer, which amount will be included in each notice.
    3. The recipients of the letters must respond to receive their refund.  They can also opt to donate the monies to the Indian Hills Public Schools Foundation.
    4. If payors of tax bills cannot be identified, or if they fail to respond, their pro-rata share of their refund will be paid to the Indian Hills Public Schools Foundation.
    5. Inquiries should be sent to the Settlement Administrator:
Dr. Harvey Rosen, Ph.D.
Burke, Rosen & Associates
2800 Euclid Ave., Suite 300
Cleveland, OH 44115
(216) 566-9300
Settlement@Indianhillsettlement.com
There is also a web site about the settlement: IndianHillSettlement.Com.
If you have any questions, please give Chris Finney of this office a call at 513-943-6655 or email him at Chris@FinneyLawFirm.Com.