Finney Law Firm is a growing firm that strives to make a difference in the greater Cincinnati area through their personal and professional work.  Members of this firm have extensive experience in a broad range of legal services including business formation and development, litigation, real estate, estate planning and administration, commercial dispute resolution, criminal defense, bankruptcy, and public interest law.  The desire is to represent clients, hire employees, and work with vendors who share in the Firm’s key standards of Integrity, Accountability, Communication, and Excellence.

Job Overview

As a growing company with offices in Eastgate and Mt. Adams, Finney Law Firm seeks to hire an Assistant Bookkeeper to contribute to the success of the Firm.  The primary functions of this position will be to assist and support the accounting and bookkeeping efforts for the Company.  A desirable candidate will be able to successfully:

  • Enter and record accurate financial information
  • Process the Firm expenses with a detailed accounting trail
  • Oversee and maintain the credits and debits of various accounts
  • Manage the day to day financial transactions for multiple accounts
  • Assist in managing the billing cycle by processing, reviewing, and sending out monthly invoices
  • Communicate and coordinate with staff, clients, and other points of contact
  • Perform additional responsibilities to assist the Bookkeeper with day to day operational needs

Required Skills and Abilities

  • Strong emphasis on being detail oriented
  • Ability to multi-task and work in a fast paced environment
  • Willing to work individually and as part of a team
  • Experience with QuickBooks and advanced Excel skills preferred
  • College degree or accounting/bookkeeping experience required

How to Apply and Additional Information

Interested candidates should email a cover letter, resume, and professional references to Katherine Fox at katherine@dev.finneylawfirm.com.  A review of applications will begin immediately.  This position is full time and benefits are available.

Soon-to-be-Judge Curt C. Hartman

We are pleased to pass along this press release from the office of Governor John Kasich that was just posted a few minutes ago.  It tells us that our very own Curt C. Hartman — “of counsel” to this firm since its inception — is being appointed to the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court.

Mr. Hartman is an extraordinary litigator.  He primarily has handled this firm’s appellate practice, including convincing the United States Supreme Court three times to accept cases of this firm, and winning each 9-0.  He also has handled numerous cases before the Ohio Supreme Court, Ohio’s many appellate Courts, and 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“We are sad to lose such a capable litigator from our ranks,” said Finney Law Firm owner Christopher P. Finney.  “But we are thrilled for the people of Hamilton County to have such a capable judge on the bench.  It is to the considerable credit of Governor Kasich that he recognized the talent of Curt Hartman and elevated him to this important position.  Congratulations to our own Curt C. Hartman!”

Mr. Hartman will be sworn in before month’s end.  Stay tuned for details of the ceremony.

Every parcel of real property in Ohio undergoes a major “reappraisal” by the County Auditor’s office every six years and then a minor “update” in the three years in the middle of that six-year cycle.  Different counties in Ohio are on a different six year and three year cycle.

Below are listed the counties that went through a major “Reappraisal” in 2016 (that new value first appearing on the January 2017 tax bill) and a minor “update” in 2016 (that new value also first appearing on the January 2017 tax bill).

The other thing important about the valuation cycle is that regardless of whether another tax complaint was brought previously, every property owner has the right to challenge his property’s assessment before the Board of Revision in the new triennial.

The schedule of counties starting a new triennial this year follows:

Reappraisal Counties
Adams
Columbiana
Hancock
Hocking
Holmes
Lawrence
Meigs
Monroe
Paulding
Scioto
Tuscarawas
Washington

Update Counties
Carroll
Champaign
Clark
Fairfield
Logan
Marion
Medina
Miami
Ross
Union
Wyandot

If you’d like our assistance with a property valuation, use our secure contact page, or contact Christopher P. Finney at 513-943-6655.

  • posted: Feb. 24, 2017
  • Hemmer DeFrank Wessels PLLC
  • Uncategorized

Written By: Scott R. Thomas

 

A dispute is brewing in Philadelphia that will test the shield of the Catholic Church against government intrusion into its affairs.  On February 7th, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania heard arguments in Chestnut Hill College v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission.  The case examined the core of Chestnut Hill College’s character as an educational institution.  The Court will determine whether the school founded in 1924 by the Sisters of Saint Joseph is a religious college whose internal decisions are beyond the reach of governmental review, or rather a secular place of learning, subject to all sovereign scrutiny.

The case arises from Chestnut Hill’s decision to expel a senior in 2012.  The student produced a play.   The proceeds were to be donated to the Lupus Foundation.  The student was told to deposit the proceeds in the Student Activities Safe so that the money could later be donated as promised.  Instead, the student deposited nothing, donated $500 to Lupus, and spent $800 on a cast party where alcohol was served to minors in violation of school policy and Pennsylvania law.

A disinterested professor conducted a hearing and, on the basis of the facts presented, recommended that the student be expelled.  The student appealed to the College Appeals Board.  The four Board members—one of whom was a student—unanimously supported the expulsion recommendation.   The recommendation was ultimately adopted by the Chestnut Hill president.  Mr. Meads then appealed to the Commission, charging that his expulsion violated the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act because it was the product of religious discrimination.

Chestnut Hill asked the Commission to dismiss the charge on grounds that, as a religious institution, the Act was inapplicable to it.  The Commission denied Chestnut Hill’s request last May and the College brought an appeal in state court.  Chestnut Hill wants Mr. Meads’ case dismissed.  The Commission wants the Court to allow the case to proceed so it may determine whether Mr. Meads’ claim has validity.  The Court will make its own decision, without regard to the Commission’s initial ruling.

Both sides have raised procedural arguments in hopes of winning on a technicality.  For example, Chestnut Hill argues that Mr. Meads did not file his discrimination claim in a timely manner.  The Commission, on the other hand, argues that Chestnut Hill failed to follow the steps to obtain judicial review and has waived its rights.

The key issue, however, is whether Chestnut Hill is a “public accommodation” under the Act.  The Act defines “public accommodation” as an “accommodation, resort, or amusement which is open to, accepts or solicits the patronage of the general public, including . . . colleges and universities . . . but shall not include any accommodations which are in their nature distinctly private.”

Chestnut Hill seems to have prior court decisions on its side.  In 1988, a Pennsylvania Court decided that a Catholic parochial school in Philadelphia was not a “public accommodation” because it was “distinctly private.”  Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission.   The Court found that Catholic schools are an “integral part of the religious mission of the Catholic church” and the “raison d’etre of parochial schools is the propagation of religious faith.”  For those reasons, the Act was held to be inapplicable.

Chestnut Hill also argues that allowing the Commission to review its disciplinary decisions would violate its First Amendment rights.  In 1998, a Court held that the freedom of religion clause prevented courts from reviewing the disciplinary decisions of a Catholic parochial school in Allentown, saying: “whenever the question of discipline, or of faith, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law [has] been decided by the . . . church . . ., the legal tribunals must accept such decisions as final . . . .” Gaston v. Diocese of Allentown.

For its part, the Commission argues that those Court decisions—which involved elementary and high schools—should not apply to Catholic colleges.  The Commission offers no cases to support this view.  Nor does the Commission explain why a Catholic high school would be “a powerful vehicle for transmitting the Catholic faith to the next generation” but a Catholic college somehow would not.

The Commission also emphasized that Chestnut Hill admits non-Catholic students.  This factor is unlikely to carry much weight because it was present in the 1988 Philadelphia case but did not prevent the Court from ruling in the school’s favor.  Finally, the Commission stresses that Chestnut Hill receives state and federal money.  No court, however, has held that the receipt of governmental aid somehow strips an institution of its character as a private, religious institution.

The Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations also submitted a brief as an “amicus curiae.”  This “friend of the court” brief was more sensational than legal and attributed positions to Chestnut Hill that the College never asserted.  Bold-face assertions—such as “Chestnut Hill College Should Not Be Allowed to Pick and Choose When and How It Will Discriminate on the Basis of Race”—are unlikely to persuade the judges on the merits.  The Philadelphia Commission almost argued “the sky is falling” when it predicted a decision in Chestnut Hill’s favor would enable 51 colleges, 12 hospitals and 5 health centers to discriminate on the basis of race with impunity.  These assertions seem to border on desperation and make Chestnut Hill’s arguments seem even stronger in comparison.

In its brief, Chestnut Hill quoted a 1985 decision in which a court wrote: “When Caesar enters the Temple to decide what the Temple believes, he can leave behind only his own views.”  This case will test that philosophy and decide whether the deference that Pennsylvania courts have shown to religious educational institutions for nearly three decades should continue.

If you would like more information about these issues, please contact Scott Thomas.   He welcomes the opportunity to work with you.  Scott’s direct line is 859.578.3862.  You can email him at sthomas@HemmerLaw.com.  If there is a particular topic you would like to see addressed in a blog, please send Scott an email with your ideas.

 

Judge Keith M. Spaeth

The Ohio Department of Education has a remarkable record in teacher disciplinary proceedings over the past five years: Nearly 100% of all proceedings decided by the state board of education result in discipline for the teacher.  Yes, the standards for “due process” in ODE administrative proceedings are so robust that nearly no one is ever found “not guilty” of the charges leveled.

That fact alone should make the citizenry shiver, as no one involved in the proceedings seems to ever find a chink in the armor of the Department’s overzealous prosecutions.  It has the appearance, if not the reality, of a rubber-stamp procedure from beginning to end.

That one-sided history of adjudication of teacher disciplinary proceedings thus made our win this week in Langdon v. Ohio Department of Education all the more sweet.

In a proceeding that endured for more than 36 months, including seven days of trial, and taking six months after the close of the hearing for the Hearing Examiner to issue a decision, our client’s teaching license was revoked by the Ohio Board of Education.  She was a special education teacher in the troubled Lakota School District, dealing with developmentally-disabled, multi-handicapped children.  We then appealed that administrative decision on behalf of our client to the Butler County Common Pleas Court pursuant to O.R.C. §119.12.

Today, the decision in that appeal was issued, and our client was completely vindicated on all points, evidentiary and legal.

In that decision, the Honorable Judge Keith Spaeth from the Butler County Common Pleas Court found “an appalling lack of fairness and due process” throughout the seven-day proceeding to which our client, Michelle Langdon was subjected.  Among the due process violations were

  • failure to provide the client with the most basic notice of the alleged infractions,
  • a complete failure to ever define “conduct unbecoming” (the basic charge against her), and
  • a failure to name her accusers.

To the Ohio Department of Education, fundamental fairness and notice of the charges filed apparently are simply an unneeded inconvenience.

The case was filled with amazing parrys and thrusts to force bureaucratic conformity in the cozy Lakota School District bureaucracy.

  • For example, when a teacher’s aide was repeatedly late, absent and lazy on the job, our client hurt her feelings by saying “I just want you to do your job.”   As hard as it may be to believe, this fact pattern was one of the dozens of charges — in challenging the inertia of the educational bureaucracy — against which our client had to defend.
  • Our client also confronted an administrator in the Lakota Schools for her failure to properly equip the classroom with the furniture and equipment needed for a special needs population. Yes, advocating forcefully for special needs children is the basis for revoking of a teacher’s license according to the Ohio Department of Education.

The Court even cited in its opinion the Hearing Examiner’s strange rulings on procedural and due process issues and the lateness of his decision outside of the statutorily-permitted deadline.  Virtually everything about the administrative proceeding was unfortunate and Kafkaesque.  This Judge Spaeth clearly understood.

You may read Judge Spaeth’s brilliant decision here.  You may read the Finney Law Firm’s briefs before the Common Pleas Court here and here.

This case was a pleasure defending, and the client was a delight.

This is from Judge Sapeth’s decision about our client:

What the evidence and testimony from the administrative hearing does show is that Appellant was a dedicated, caring educator…She was an advocate for these children, and throughout her tenure at Lakota, Appellant went above and beyond the normal duties of a classroom teacher to ensure that her students had a genuine high school experience and resources to help them transition from the classroom to independent living.

We truly were thrilled to help “Make a Difference” for this client in this engagement.  The proceeding was important to her license and career, but the bigger principle of reining in an out-of-control state agency was even more important.  And here that principle  was vindicated.

We now look forward to the expeditious restoration of our client’s teaching licenses and an award of her attorneys fees for forcing her to endure this persecution, which state statute requires.

  • posted: Jan. 17, 2017
  • Hemmer DeFrank Wessels PLLC
  • Uncategorized

Written By: Janie Ratliff-Sweeney

If you (or your organization) provide health care, it is likely that you are considered a “Covered Entity” and must comply with the federal privacy rule more commonly known as “HIPAA”. One component of HIPAA requires covered entities to notify patients in a timely manner if the covered entity experiences a breach of patient data. Examples of a potential breach are discovering that an outside force hacked into your software system containing patient information; an employee opened an email and let loose “ransom ware” to infect your software system and all of your data; a laptop or other device containing patient data is lost or stolen; or, a disgruntled employee removed patient files or other information from your premises — the list goes on.

If a breach occurs, a covered entity has 60 days from when the breach is discovered within which it must notify the affected patients that their protected health information may have been compromised, and the notice must contain other specific information.  Also, in some circumstances, the media must also be notified.  Failure to timely and properly notify affected patients will subject the covered entity to potential fines and other punitive action.

To drive this point home, on January 9, 2017, the agency charged with enforcement of HIPAA — the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights, or “OCR” — announced the first HIPAA settlement based upon an organization’s untimely reporting of a breach to its affected patients.  The organization agreed to settle potential violations of HIPAA by paying $475,000 and implementing a corrective action plan.  The OCR stated that the settlement balanced the need to emphasize the importance of timely breach reporting with the desire not to disincentive breach reporting altogether.

If you are a covered entity, not understanding your obligations under HIPAA can result in catastrophic fines.  Contact Janie M. Ratliff-Sweeney at the law firm of Hemmer DeFrank Wessels, PLLC to consult about HIPAA.  Mrs. Ratliff-Sweeney’s email address is jratliff@hemmerlaw.com and her phone number is (859) 344-1188.

 

Finney Law Firm is a growing firm that strives to make a difference in the greater Cincinnati area through their personal and professional work.  Members of this firm have extensive experience in a broad range of legal services including business formation and development, litigation, real estate, estate planning and administration, commercial dispute resolution, criminal defense, bankruptcy, and public interest law.  The desire is to represent clients, hire employees, and work with vendors who share in the Firm’s key standards of Integrity, Accountability, Communication, and Excellence.

Job Overview

As a growing company with offices in Eastgate and Mt. Adams, the Finney Law Firm seeks to hire a Legal Assistant to contribute to the success of the firm.  The primary functions of this position will be to assist and support team of attorneys through all aspects of their practice.  A desirable candidate will be able to successfully:

  • Support the day to day operational needs of the litigation attorneys
  • Prepare, finalize, and file pleadings and other court documents
  • Prepare and coordinate discovery requests and responses
  • Obtain, review, and analyze documents such as medical records, financial records, or other relevant records necessary for case management
  • Communicate and coordinate with staff, clients, opposing counsel, and other points of contact
  • Oversee and maintain the litigation team’s caseload, progress, and deadline schedule
  • Perform legal assistant responsibilities such as reviewing and preparing letters, mailing documents, organizing files, etc.

Required Skills and Abilities

  • Strong emphasis on being detail oriented
  • Ability to multi-task in a face paced environment
  • Excellent time management, scheduling, and organizational skills
  • Eager to learn and accomplish tasks that are needed
  • Willing to work individually and as part of a team
  • Legal experience preferred, but not required

How to Apply and Additional Information

Interested candidates should email a cover letter, resume, and references to Katherine Fox at katherine@dev.finneylawfirm.com.  A review of applications will begin immediately.  This position is full time and benefits are available.  For more information on the firm, please visit finneylawfirm.com.

One of Cincinnati’s most distinguished citizens — an accomplished inventor and scientist — passed yesterday with worldwide acclaim.

Dr. Henry Heimlich moved into the annals of history and medicine upon his death, and his significant accomplishments (which extend well beyond the Heimlich Maneuver) will endure for perpetuity.

But I knew him as a client and friend, and I can personally say it was an honor to have known him and worked with him.

He shared with me stories of his many accomplishments and how he conceived of his many life-saving inventions.  It was remarkable how his mind worked, but one of the remarkable features as how simple and logic-based his thinking was.  Some of the answers he conceived were right before our eyes, but only he saw them clearly.

That we all could think creatively, and simply, and so reasonably would be an asset to humanity.

RIP, Dr. Heimlich.   Rest in peace.

Read more here.

We would not be the first to use the phrase: “You don’t know what you don’t know,” but this is never more true than in the setting of planning and executing on new construction, residential and commercial.

As a general rule, new construction can be had in four different contexts: (i) building on “raw land,” (ii) building on a “developed lot,” (iii) building on land that has an existing building that will be demolished and (iv) renovating an existing building.  Compared to the relative ease of buying and using an existing building, each of these can be fraught with risks and unexpected costs.

Existing building.

Let’s first address the “relative” ease of buying an existing, occupied building.  Now, don’t misinterpret what we say here: You should always thoroughly “kick the tires” in every purchase.  Comprehensive “due diligence” is prudent in every transaction to find construction and maintenance defects, environmental problems, and zoning and other regulatory issues.  But having said that, it is at least possible to look at, touch, feel, and inspection existing building, whether a single family home or commercial structure.  The longer it has been there, the more likely it’s not going anywhere.  You can check the building and zoning file of the applicable City, Village or Township to see if the existing use has been cited as being in violation.  Buying land for new construction is in some ways more complicated.

Raw land.

So, a buyer looks at land and sees no building.  Is that “raw land” or a “developed lot?”  In the terminology used in this blog post, the distinction between a “developed lot” and “raw land” is the “full development” of the site with roadways and utilities (water, sanitary sewer, gas, electric, telephone, and cable television) and properly addressing stormwater drainage and detention.  Also, typically zoning approval for the intended use of lots has been obtained before the “development” of the land and the cut-up of the same into lots.  On the other hand, “raw land” is just that — land without any improvements on it, underground or otherwise.

In the case of “raw land” there are a host of potential pitfalls to achieving a final new construction product:

  • Zoning: Is the proposed use permitted and are proposed lot size, setbacks, and other variables for the proposed use permitted?
  • Utility access: Are public utilities available at the property line of the site (and indeed how much will it cost to extend it to the building).  The party who develops a site is usually responsible for (a) obtaining easements for and (b) paying the cost of extending public utilities to the property line and to the building itself.
  • Soil conditions: The suitability of soil for new construction is a significant variable for new construction.  In short, virtually every piece of land can be built upon from a physical perspective, but one may have to dig, bore, pier, bridge and engage in other engineering techniques to make that possible.  And the cost of building that proper foundation for the new construction can exceed the cost of the land and building.  Further, if the prior owner has moved and compacted sills not he site, it can significantly exacerbate the problem.  When a developer piles soil that is not acceptable compacted, it forces the builder to escalate or pier down to an acceptable depth before starting the construction.
  • Buried waste: In addition to soil problems, it is not at all uncommon to find all sorts of buried materials on what appears to the naked eye to be an open field or pasture.  I have been hired by several property owners seeking to put a pool in their backyard to find buried buses, trees, and blacktop.  This is because when a developer “scrapes” a subdivision to build roads and other improvement, it is common to show all this debris into a “bury pit.” Other subterranean gems my clients have found have been concrete chunks or rip rap, buried tires and even elephant carcasses and school buses (I do not make this up).
  • Title problems.  As is addressed in this blog entry, there are a host of title problems that can arise in the new construction setting: An unreleased mortgage, an unreleased dower interest of a spouse, easements both of record and prescriptive, and adverse possession claims.  In addition to “running title,” a buyer should obtain a proper survey of property to assure that there are no encroachments upon property he intends to acquire.
Developed lots.

In the case of buying a “developed lot” in a subdivision — residential or commercial — the same variables are typically present.  Again, typically zoning, utility availability and storm drainage are addressed in the “development” and “subdivision” process, but the other issues can be of concern.  We were recently approached by a client who inherited a residential lot, but the lot was too narrow for construction of an appropriate residence.  Another found buried tires on the site.  A third found that the developer had not properly compacted the soil, requiring expensive excavation and foundation work.  Further, new subdivisions frequently (almost always) are accompanied by a set of covenants — enforceable by the developer or neighbors — on the design and use of new construction.

Demolition.

Other clients buy one or more existing structures with the intention of demolishing them  and building on the newly-cleared land.  In these circumstances, there may be restrictions (such as historic districts) that prevent demolition.  Further, when old buildings are demolished and replaced, the new construction may need to comply with entirely new set of restrictions than the old building in terms of lot size, setback lines, building height, building materials, covenants, and building code issues.

Renovation.

Renovating existing structures involves a whole new level of intricate issues.  When renovation is sufficiently significant, an entire floor, improvement or even the hole building then has to be brought up to new building codes.  Further, in tearing out old improvements, there are as many or more surprises — structurally, with mold and hazardous materials (asbestos is common) — than with developing raw land.

Due diligence.

A client and friend preaches repeatedly to me that he has learned — from experience — to be skeptical.  Your eyes are lying to you.  Behind the walls and under the ground, in regulatory restrictions and site limitations, don’t believe your own observations alone.  Rather, work diligently before buying property and certainly before digging into the ground to learn all of the pitfalls and variables of the site.  It an save you time, money and heartache.

Contractual protections.

I have aa saying as an attorney: The best contract can’t make the other party honest or turn a scoundrel into an honorable man.  But it can be used to flesh out issues, and to place the burden on a dishonest seller if he is trying to sell you a “bill of goods.”

Some contractual provisions that can be helpful in the new construction setting are:

  • Obtaining representations and warranties in the contract from the seller.
  • Obtaining all of the seller’s investigations and due diligence documents from his acquisition of the subject property and that he obtained throughout his ownership.
  • Have the seller promise to pay the cost associated with extraordinary sub-surface conditions.
  • Allow for generous due diligence investigations of the property in terms of time and property access during the sue diligence period.
Conclusion.

After reading this blog entry, it would be an entirely rational reaction to never want to undertake the risks and challenges of new construction.  Indeed, knowledgeable buyers see danger (read: costs) lurking behind every corner.  But at the same time, a savvy buyer can — with relative safety — protect himself and seize the opportunity that new construction presents.

 

 

Today’s USA today has a detailed update of our case before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio wherein Tea Party and other liberty-oriented groups are suing the IRS for illegal and unconstitutional targeting of their non-profit applications.

Investigative reporter James Pilcher does a thorough job of updating the litigation that the IRS has worked hard to drag out.  It has already gone on for three and a half years.

Our firm is local co-counsel to the Tea Party groups, which have been certified as the only class action in the nation challenging the IRS conduct under Lois Lerner, the director of the  Exempt Organizations Unit of the IRS.  The matter erupted into a nation-wide controversy in 2013, culminating in Ms. Lerner invoking her Fifth Amendment defense against self-incrimination in refusing to testify before Congress.

Read the story here.