Last week, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a landmark decision on Ohio’s Open Meetings law, O.R.C. Section 121.22 in the case of White v. King.

Ohio’s Open Meetings law prohibits closed-door deliberations of public business when a majority of the public body is present, subject to host of exceptions.  But the question was confronted in the King case of whether deliberations via email among that same majority of public officials is also prohibited.

The King case strongly answered that question in the affirmative:

serial e-mail communications by a majority of board members regarding a response to public criticism of the board may constitute a private, prearranged discussion of public business in violation of R.C. 121.22 if they meet the requirements of the statute.

The decision is linked here.

In both commercial and residential transactions I recently have seen a spate of emailed communications purporting to amend a purchase contract.  Many times these are emails among Realtors “confirming” one claimed contractual modification or another.

What is the legal effect of these emailed communications?

Minor changes.

The nature of the emails I have seen typically involve changing (delaying) a closing date or waiving certain of the contingencies.  As the transaction unravels, the client approaches me and wants to enforce the contract as “amended.”  Thus, the question becomes: legally and practically, what effect on the original, signed contract do these emails have?

The answer: Likely none.  The original signed contract will likely stand unamended.

No signature.

As is addressed here, the statute of frauds, which is very similar state to state, requires two things for all contracts for the purchase and sale of real estate: (i) the contract must be in writing and (ii) it must be signed by the party “to be charged therewith,” i.e., the person we are planning on enforcing the contract against.

Because the emails in the cases I have recently seen are not accompanied by the adverse party’s “signature,” they likely will not be enforceable.  Thus, the Courts will probably look to the original, unsigned contract to ascertain the rights and responsibilities of the parties to the contract.

What is an amendment?

Most clients and their agents seem to know about the statute of frauds, and do in fact comply with it as to the original contract. Somehow, however, the message has not gotten through that this applies to every amendment or modification to the contract as well.

Changing a closing date, waiving a contingency, adding personal property to what is to be conveyed, or promising to make certain repairs pre-closing or post-closing are all amendments to a contract and need to comply with these basic provisions of the statute of frauds.

E-signatures still allowed.

Many clients and Realtors have adopted use of electronic signatures (such as DocuSign) to allow fulfillment of the statute of frauds by means of email and the internet for the original contract.  As is addressed here, this method does in fact fulfill the statute of frauds.  Thus, for these fast-developing “minor” amendments to a contract, e-signatures are fine as well.

Conclusion.

I suppose clients and their Realtors see memorializing these changes as not worthy of taking the time to properly document the same, or they misunderstand that these are in fact amendments to the contract. This is especially so with respect to fast-moving developments in a modern real estate transaction.

The rule is simple: the contract for purchase and sale of real estate and all amendments thereto must be in writing and must be signed by the party on the other side of the transaction.

The way Ohio Public Records law is written, a member of the public aggrieved by the failure of a public agency to produce requested documents as required by law may sue that public agency for those records, and if he prevails, receive an award of attorneys fees.

Unfortunately, a pair of decisions of the Ohio Supreme Court in January of 2015 effectively gutted Ohio Public Records law by holding that attorneys fees would not be awarded if the agency produced the disputed records before the conclusion of the litigation.  You may read those decisions in State ex rel. DiFranco v. South Euclid here and here.

Thus, the Supreme Court has empowered recalcitrant public agencies to ignore and play games with public records requests.

In response, the Ohio legislature is finally grappling with the issue. As today’s Enquirer reports, Senate President Keith Faber is considering a proposal to make quicker and easier Ohio Public Records complaints through the Ohio Court of Claims.  Read about that here.

The new process contemplates resolution in 75 days or fewer.  Presently, public records cases take two years or longer to resolve through the Ohio courts.

The proposal does not reinstate the attorneys fee awards taken from members of the public by the Ohio Supreme Court, but it should make proceeding pro se more practical.

 

NOTE: the deadline to file a claim is April 13th.  Please act quickly.

The Duke Energy class action settlement has generated a record amount of traffic on our firm’s web site.  That’s a good thing, because virtually every residential and commercial customer of Duke Energy in southwest Ohio that owned property from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2008 is entitled to a refund, in some cases a significant one

We have had a few questions from clients about the settlement.  We checked and got you the answers:

  1.  If I owned a property during the relevant time period, but have since sold it, may I still file a claim?  Yes.
  2. If I can’t recall the addresses of all of the properties I owned during the claim period (we have, for example, home builder clients with multiple, rotating model homes), can I file a claim for those?  The class action attorneys are looking into this further for us, but probably not.  The claims process requires the name of the property owner and the identity of the property in question.

If you want to file a claim, log in here and follow the instructions.  It only takes a few minutes.

The deadline to file is fast approaching: April 13th.

We are excited to announce that Finney Law Firm attorneys Isaac T. Heintz and W.Z. “Dylan” Sizemore will present “Five Pillars of Success” to the Greater Cincinnati Home Builders Association on Wednesday, April 20th from 11:30 AM to 12:30 PM.

HBA members and non-members are invited, but non-members (“Future members”) must pay $25 to attend.

The seminar addresses the key steps that business owners should take in establishing and growing their businesses to maximize returns and minimize exposure to liabilities.  The presenters are knowledgeable and experienced business and real estate attorneys.

The Cincinnati Home Builders Association is a private organization of home builders and their vendors that is entrepreneurial and well-led.  They actively participate in civic matters of critical concern for the local economy and provide important educational opportunities for their members.  Finney Law Firm is proud to be a member.

A flyer with the details of the event is linked here. The location of the presentation is The Tile Shop, 3095 Disney Street Cincinnati, OH 45209.

Register online to attend this program. Reservations are required.

 

 

 

All residential and commercial users of electric generation service from Duke Energy Corp. and/or Cinergy Corp. from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2008 are eligible for a rebate under a class action effectuated in the case Williams v. Duke Energy.  For residential users, the rebate will range from $40 to $400.  For commercial users the rebate is unlimited in size.

As described to me by one of the attorneys for the Plaintiffs, the settlement — nearly $81 million in all — means “real money,” especially for larger commercial users.  Your business should not miss this opportunity, and it is even worthwhile for residential users to avail themselves of this windfall.

  • However, in order to obtain a refund, consumers must complete and submit a form on-line or on paper by April 13, 2016.

The on-line form is quick and simple.  It should take fewer than five minutes to complete.  We strongly recommend that all of our eligible clients log onto http://dukeclassaction.com and complete the form. I just did it for my own residence, and it was super-quick and super-simple.

 

We hear a lot of misinformation from prospective sellers and Realtors on when a Residential Property Disclosure Form must be used in Ohio:

  • “I’ve never lived in the house, and thus I am exempt from filling out the form.”
  • “I’m just an investor.  I don’t have to complete the form.”

Neither of these statements is true, so let’s bust these myths and in the process really dig into why a residential property disclosure form is “required” and when it is “required.”

What is the “requirement”?

As an opening proposition, Ohio law does not actually require the use of the Residential Property Disclosure statement. And by this I mean that no one is going to go to jail for failure to use the form, and the civil consequences are generally limited to termination of the contract before closing, if any.

The law in question is Ohio Revised Code Section 5302.30.  It is indeed entitled “Property disclosure form required for all residential real estate transfers.”  But when reading the statute it becomes apparent that the penalty for non compliance is: rescission of the contract, but only prior to the earlier of thirty days after the contract is signed or the date of closing (ORC § 5302.30 (K)(4)):

If a transferee of residential real property subject to this section does not receive a property disclosure form from the transferor after the transferee has submitted to the transferor or the transferor’s agent or subagent a transfer offer and has entered into a transfer agreement with respect to the property, the transferee may rescind the transfer agreement in a written, signed, and dated document that is delivered to the transferor or the transferor’s agent or subagent in accordance with division (K)(4) of this section without incurring any legal liability to the transferor because of the rescission, including, but not limited to, a civil action for specific performance of the transfer agreement.

Ohio Revised Code §5302.30 (K)(2) also provides for rescission if the seller amends the Residential Property Disclosure Form after the contract is signed.

It is always advisable to disclose

Before we get to the question of whether Ohio law requires disclosure, there is another question of whether disclosure is advisable.  The answer is almost always “of course.”

The basis of property defects fraud claims is either (a) a material misrepresentation as to a known defect (i.e., lying about the basement leaking or the presence of termites) or (b) non-disclosure of a known material defect that is not readily open to observation by a buyer.

A full and proper written disclosure inoculates a seller from both of these claims and this is advisable even if the law does not require full disclosure.

What types of transactions are covered?

Section (B)(1) of the statute tells us what types of transactions are covered by the “requirement”:

  1. transfers by sale;
  2. transfers by land installment contract;
  3. transfers by lease with option to purchase;
  4. an exchange of property; or
  5. a lease for a term of ninety-nine years and renewable forever.

Who must provide the form and who is exempt?

So, then, on to the question of who must provide the disclosure and when must it be provided:

The statute provides that it covers all “transferors ” of properties containing one to four dwelling units.  So, this would seem to include otherwise commercial properties that contain under four dwelling units, such as a bar or restaurant with apartments above.

And then the statute contains an extensive list of exemptions from its requirements detailed below, but the exemptions do include:

  • New construction;
  • Transfers from an estate; and
  • Transfers among family members and co-owners or pursuant to a divorce;

The statute does not exempt investors or simply owners who did not live in the property.

Waiver by buyer

Finally, a buyer can waive his right of rescission for a Residential Property Disclosure Form (O.R.C §5302.30 ((K)(3)(c).  And, since this is the only remedy for the failure to deliver the Residential Property Disclosure Form, it is essentially a waiver of rights of the buyer under the entire statute.

Conclusion

So, the myth is busted.  Investors and other owners who did not live in the house (except those administering an estate of a seller) are not exempt from the requirements of the statute.

Appendix

A more complete list of exemptions is below:

(1) A transfer pursuant to court order;

(2) A transfer to a mortgagee by a mortgagor by deed in lieu of foreclosure or in satisfaction of the mortgage debt;

(3) A transfer by a mortgagee, or a beneficiary under a deed of trust, who has acquired the residential real property at a sale conducted pursuant to a power of sale under a mortgage or a deed of trust or who has acquired the residential real property by a deed in lieu of foreclosure;

(4) A transfer by a fiduciary in the course of the administration of a decedent’s estate, a guardianship, a conservatorship, or a trust;

(5) A transfer from one co-owner to one or more other co-owners;

(6) transfer to immediate family members and transfers as a part of a divorce;

(7) A transfer to or from the state, a political subdivision of the state, or another governmental entity;

((8) A transfer that involves newly constructed residential real property that previously has not been inhabited;

(9) A transfer to a transferee who has occupied the property as a personal residence for one or more years immediately prior to the transfer;

(10) A transfer from a transferor who both has not occupied the property as a personal residence within one year immediately prior to the transfer and has acquired the property through inheritance or devise.

Our firm is pleased to serve as Plaintiff’s counsel in the assault case against Cincinnati Boxer Adrien Broner.

From today’s Enquirer our own Chris Finney is quoted:

“Adrien seems to have a penchant for walking around town and slugging people,” said Carson’s attorney, Chris Finney. “We want it to stop.”

Read about it in today’s Enquirer here.

The above headline — a great headline — greeted us from today’s Washington Post, for an article describing a decision issued today from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on the case in which we are local counsel — NorCal Tea Party v. United States of America.

That case addresses the abuses at the IRS over the segregation and targeting of conservative groups for slowed consideration of their tax exemption applications, and harassment in the form of illegal and over-burdening questioning and extra reviews of their applications.  It is the only case addressing the abuses at the IRS that is still proceeding and the only case to achieve class certification status.

In that case, the Plaintiffs are seeking the spreadsheets showing the list of the targeted groups, and certain details of the extra scrutiny they endured.  Federal District Court Judge Susan J. Dlott had ordered that the IRS produce that list.  The IRS first asked her to reconsider that decision and then appealed the decision to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Today’s opinion upheld that decision of Judge Dlott.  The decision is here.

Nominally, the decision was a detailed analysis of the taxpayer confidentiality statute, 26 USC Section §6103.  But the unanimous 6th Circuit panel decision authored by Judge Kethledge, did so much more than that.

  • First, it provided a detailed recitation of the alleged abuses of the IRS in targeting and discriminating against tea party groups;
  • It also laid out a scorching criticism of the IRS and its counsel for fighting every issue in the litigation, including discovery, beyond reason.

The opinion has garnered widespread media coverage as well:

Our firm is proud to participate in this historic and important litigation.

 

.