It was a long and arduous legal journey expose and punish the $300,000 in illegal campaign contributions aimed to defeat Christopher Smitherman in the 2013 Cincinnati City Council elections, but Finney Law Firm and attorney Curt Hartman indeed “Made a Difference” by doggedly pursuing this case to conclusion.

You may read more about that adventure here.

We are pleased to report that Cincinnatians for Jobs Now and Jonathan White recently paid the $15,000 fine levied against them in the disciplinary proceeding.

Read the transmittal 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.

As we have shared previously, this firm is pleased to act as co-counsel for the only certified class action against the IRS on behalf of Tea Party groups nationwide.  There have been recently interesting developments in that case.

First, Judge Dlott recused herself from the case and it was assigned to Federal District Court Judge Michael Barrett.  Second, Judge Barrett made his first major ruling two weeks ago in that case on a series of motions that resulted in an order requiring the IRS to process the long-delayed application (like six year delay) of the tax exemption application of one of our named clients, the Texas Tea Party Patriots.  You may read that ruling here.

Second, other Tea Party groups are also seeing their applications finally being processed.  Today’s Washington Times reports that after a seven-year delay of the tax exemption application of the Albuquerque Tea Party, the IRS finally denied that application.  Read that story here.

We hope to have further significant developments in that case in the near future.

The Finney Law Firm and lead attorney Curt Hartman doggedly pursued discipline by the Ohio Elections Commission in the case of dark money spent against Christopher Smitherman in his 2013 election campaign to Cincinnati City Council.

Mysteriously, more than $300,000 in mailers, flyers and radio and television advertisements were issued during the closing weeks of the campaign, but no committee fessed up to making those expenditures or disclosing their sources of funds.

In July, the Ohio Elections Commissioner finally, after years of litigation found that the wrongdoers had in fact systematically violated Ohio elections law and fined them $15,000.

But the key player in that saga, Cincinnati union leader Rob Richardson, steadfastly refused to submit  to a deposition or present his testimony before the Ohio Elections Commission.

This past week, the Ohio Attorney General initiated a contempt action against Richardson for ignoring a lawfully-issued subpoena.

You may read that suit here.  You may read Smitherman’s press release relating to the same here.

Our firm was pleased to represent the distinguished council member Christopher Smitherman in this action and was pleased to win it after years of delay from the Ohio Elections Commission.

Cincinnati CPA’s Crystal Faulker and Tom Cooney are great friends and business associates of Finney Law Firm, and have one of the strongest marketing outreaches in town.  They are with MCM CPAs and Advisors. (Their web site is here.)

They have a radio show, BusinessWise, which airs on: WMKV and WLHS, FM 89.3 and 89.9; Mon – Fri at 7:30 am & 6:40 pm.

They featured Christopher Finney on their show on October 17th to discuss the costs and risks of defending and prosecuting civil litigation, especially for business clients.  A link to that show is here.  Scroll to the 10-17-16 show and listen in!

 

Certain legal challenges seem to come in waves for me, and lately one of those waves involves difficulties encountered in the termination of the Cincinnati Area Board of Realtors Purchase Contract, either for failure of the inspection contingency or the financing contingency.

Three guideposts should guide real estate practitioners, buyers and sellers in the exercise of contingencies in a purchase contract:

  • Read the contract.

Just because a contract is contingent upon the satisfactory outcome of a a loan application or a house inspection does not mean that termination is automatic just because the buyer says it is so.

  • Follow the steps for termination set forth in the Contract.

The Contract many times lays out a specific procedure for contract termination.  That procedure should be followed.

  • Get it in writing.

As we address here, the statute of frauds requires the contract and every amendment and termination thereof to be in writing.  Stating it most simply, if it in’t in writing, it did not happen.

As an example, the Cincinnati Area Board or Realtors Purchase Contract provides a procedure for termination of a contract for the failure of an inspection contingency:

If Buyer is not satisfied with the condition of the Real Estate, as revealed by the inspection(s) and desires to terminate this Contract, Buyer shall provide written notification to Listing Firm or Seller that Buyer is exercising Buyer’s right to terminate this Contract within the Inspection Period, and this Contract shall be terminated.

That seems really simple, but the Cincinnati Area Board of Realtors also has a series of supplemental forms for use in residential real estate transactions.  Two of those are:

  • Release from Contract to Purchase.  This form is a supplemental agreement between a buyer and a seller to terminate a contract.
  • Notice of Termination of the Contract to Purchase.  This document is a unilateral (i.e., just a notice signed by one party to the other; it does not require a counter signature).
Seller refuses to acknowledge an “offer” to terminate.

I recently experienced a situation in which the buyer signed and tendered a Release from Contract to Purchase to the Seller for the Seller to sign within the inspection contingency period.   The seller claimed that that form did not constitute sufficient notice of the failure of the inspection contingency pursuant to the language set forth above and thus it was merely an “offer” from the buyer to the seller to terminate the contact.

The seller reasoned that because both (i) the buyer failed to notify the seller of the failure of the inspection contingency pursuant to the contract requirements and (ii) the seller refused the tendered “offer” to terminate, that the buyer was still bound to the contract. Further, since the inspection period had since lapsed, it was now too late to provide such notice, the seller claimed.

What we did in that circumstance was to supplement the submittal to the seller with a termination under the financing contingency, and eventually the seller conceded that the contract had been terminated and returned the buyer’s earnest money.

Seller refuses to schedule inspection.

In another recent dust-up between a buyer and a seller, the seller refused to schedule an inspection of the property pursuant to the inspection contingency.  In this instance, the buyer attempted to so schedule using the automated showing system, and the seller simply would not permit or acknowledge the request.

In that circumstance, the buyer sent a termination to the seller, and we await his response. But what is a buyer to do when the seller refuses to allow access for an inspection?  Clearly, the courts will permit the buyer to terminate either pursuant to the inspection contingency or because the seller has breached the contract by refusing to allow the inspection.

Conclusion.

So, even though it should seem to be a clear right of the buyer to terminate the contract, the form that that communication to the seller takes informing him of the termination could well impact the substance of whether the termination was effective.

This firm is pleased to represent Professional Psychiatric Associates and Dr. Mohamed Aziz in a suit against West Chester Township challenging the Township’s heavy-handed attempts to outlaw a psychiatric care facility on former nursing home property.

Federal Law clearly prohibits discriminating in zoning laws against those who treat mental health conditions versus physical healthcare, which is precisely what the Township was trying to do, starting with a moratorium issued in April quickly after Dr. Aziz acquired the facility.

The Judge in the suit is Timothy Black, and he spoke pretty clearly in a early order in the case:

“The court has held two initial telephone conferences involving counsel for plaintiffs and for defendant. During these conferences, the court reminded both parties of the consequences that could result if the court finds that the Americans with Disabilities Act and/or the Rehabilitation Act have been violated by defendant, or not.”

The statement is direct, elaborate and unusual, in that the Judge — while keeping an open mind — is forecasting his views on Plaintiffs claims and ever so gently nudging the Township in the direction of resolving the claims by means of settlement versus forcing him to make a ruling against the Township in the matter.

The Hamilton Journal-News and Denise Callahan have the story fully developed here.

We just got this alert from our underwriter, First American Title Insurance Co., this morning:

The agent receives an email from a “buyer” purporting to have property under contract and wants the agent to facilitate the closing – often a cash deal or large earnest money deposit from an “out of town” buyer. When the agent agrees, the fraudulent buyer sends funds in the form of a wire or check along with purchase and sale agreement.

The agent might even know or confirm that the property really is listed for sale – and it is.  The amount for the contract even looks right given the list price/value. After a few days, the buyer says the deal fell through and asks for the money back saying, “a wire would be best.”

The check or wire has either not cleared yet, or even if it has, it is still within the period for which payment can be stopped or reversed.  Either way, the agent ends up having paid out good funds, but has no good funds paid in.

 

Deidre Shesgreen of USA Today has a great story up on the long battle that this firm’s attorneys waged on behalf of our client David Krikorian before the Federal Elections Commission.

It took the FEC five long years to act on a simple Complaint on which the facts were largely not in dispute, and they barely slapped the wrist of our former Congressman Jean Schmidt for taking an illegal gift that actually exceeded $650,000.

Our firm carefully researched the facts and the law, and prepared a complaint that irrefutably established the violations of Federal Election Law.

The gist of the story is that the FEC is hopelessly ineffectual, taking interminable amounts of time to decide simple issues and deadlocking on partisan lines over the most obvious violations of law.

Read the story here.