Michael W. Sandner Archives - Pickrel Schaeffer & Ebeling

Change on the Horizon for School District’s Ability to Challenge Property Values?

Pam Thomas — Tue, 25 Jan 2022 20:24:18 +0000

Anyone who has filed a complaint with the Board of Revision to contest the value of their property or who has acquired property at a price above the County appraised value has likely encountered counsel for their local school district at their Board of Revision hearing. School Boards oftentimes contract with law firms that focus on property valuation matters to actively review property values within a given district and to take action to ensure that appropriate valuations are imposed. This activity led to the introduction of House Bill 126 last year which sought to limit or at least regulate a School District’s ability to challenge a property tax value by requiring the School District first to pass a resolution to proceed with the challenge and to notify affected property owners.

The Bill passed the House and moved on to the Senate, where a significant amendment was added to the Senate version of the Bill, Substitute House Bill 126 now prohibits a School District from initiating a challenge against property in its District and also prohibits a Board of Education from appealing a decision rendered by the Board of Revision to the Board of Tax Appeals. A School District can still file a countercomplaint to a property owner-initiated challenge, but the proposed Bill would essentially take a sword away from School Districts and leave them simply with a shield; the ability to file a counterclaim to a property owner-initiated complaint.

The Bill now returns to the House for approval of the amended version or Committee referral to reconcile the changes. Should the Amended Bill pass, it would represent a significant change in how cases can be brought before the Board of Revision by Local School Districts. Pickrel, Schaeffer & Ebeling will follow this legislation to see how the House responds.

If you have questions or want to discuss this update, please contact Mike Sandner at msandner@pselaw.com or 937.223.1130.

The post Change on the Horizon for School District’s Ability to Challenge Property Values? appeared first on Pickrel Schaeffer & Ebeling.

Have you checked the value of your property on your tax bill?

Pam Thomas — Thu, 20 Jan 2022 18:02:50 +0000

Each year the Boards of Revision, as established by each County, accept complaints challenging the value of the real property between January 1st and March 31st. This window provides an opportunity for individual or business property owners to file a complaint challenging the value of their property based upon arms-length sales or market data. 2021 saw an increase in a wide variety of real estate properties. The valuation established by the County should be reviewed to ensure that it is accurate as applied to your property. Where opportunities exist to lower your value, you may benefit from reduced taxes for years to come.

If you have questions about the Board of Revision process or your particular circumstances, please do not hesitate to contact Mike Sandner at Pickrel, Schaeffer, and Ebeling Co., L.P.A., email: msandner@pselaw.com; phone: (937) 223-1130.

The post Have you checked the value of your property on your tax bill? appeared first on Pickrel Schaeffer & Ebeling.

Has your income generating property lost value due to COVID-19?

Pam Thomas — Fri, 20 Aug 2021 14:03:12 +0000

Do you think your commercial income generating property has lost value as a result of COVID-19? If so, a unique opportunity exists until September 2nd to file a complaint against the property value specifically identifying how the property has been impacted by COVD-19. Senate Bill 57, which passed earlier this year, gives property owners a rare additional opportunity to challenge their property value based upon the impact from the pandemic. A complaint will need to be filed with the County Board of Revision on or before September 2nd identifying the owner’s opinion of value for the property as of October 1, 2020, and supporting their claim for a reduction in value.
If you think you have a commercial income generating property that can demonstrate impact as a result of the pandemic, please don’t hesitate to contact Mike Sandner at Pickrel, Schaeffer & Ebeling at 937.223.1130 or msandner@pselaw.com.

The post Has your income generating property lost value due to COVID-19? appeared first on Pickrel Schaeffer & Ebeling.

Appropriate Use of Non-Compete Agreements for Your Business

Pam Thomas — Wed, 23 Jun 2021 18:44:53 +0000

Many readers are likely familiar with non-compete agreements and understand they are valuable tools in retaining employees and preventing unfair competition. However, it’s equally true they can be overused and abused, and rolled out in unnecessary circumstances. For example, the practice of Jimmy John’s use of non-compete agreements precluding employees working for other sandwich shops gained some notoriety a few years ago, ultimately leading to suits by the New York and Illinois Attorney General’s to prohibit the practice.
For small business owners, the dilemma is determining when to use non-compete agreements and understand if they will be enforceable in certain situations and at certain employee levels. A well-crafted non-compete agreement may lead an employer to offer more wages to an employee, invest more in an employee’s training and development, and protect the employer from the migration of those investments. However, an overbroad agreement, as was recently illustrated in a Second District Court of Appeals decision, may provide none of those benefits.
The recent Second District Court of Appeals case Geloff v. R.C. Hemm’s Glass Shops, Inc. illustrates this issue. Geloff was a field glazier for Hemm’s and had executed a non-compete and non-disclosure date at the time of his hiring. Obviously, as a field glazier, Geloff had interaction with customers of Hemm’s and installed glass doors and windows along with other glass products, but he was not in sales and not involved with marketing. His non-compete agreement precluded him, for two (2) years following the termination of his employment, from participating as an employee in any business in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, Indiana, Pennsylvania, or West Virginia engaged in business similar to Hemm’s, including the sale of glass mirror products.
After four (4) years of employment with Hemm’s, Geloff joined the Glaziers Local Union No. 387. Shortly after, he went to work for a company called American Architectural Glass as a field glazier. After starting at American Architectural Glass, Geloff and his new employer each received a letter from Hemm’s Glass threatening litigation under the non-compete agreement. Hemm’s followed through on their threat, and American Architectural Glass terminated Geloff’s employment after the initiation of the suit. In the litigation that followed, the Trial Court ultimately granted judgment in favor of Geloff, concluding that the non-compete agreement was unenforceable.
The key to the Trial Court’s analysis was the non-compete agreement was found to operate to suppress ordinary competition instead of unfair competition, which is what the agreements are designed to protect against. The key to the Trial Court’s ruling was Geloff did not possess any confidential information. There was some testimony that Geloff did know the identities of some customers. Still, the Court noted nothing indicated that knowledge was not public and cited that Hemm’s advertised some of its customers for promotional purposes as contradictory to the customer identities as confidential.
The Court also considered no evidence was presented that Geloff had acquired any unique or proprietary skills while in Hemm’s employ. Certainly, he had learned and developed his trade as a glazier while with Hemm’s, but nothing that could be identified as unique or proprietary. The Court noted that experience and skills could not qualify as trade secrets if they are common knowledge in the trade. As to the six (6) State restriction, the Court saw no evidence that such a geographical territory was necessary to restrain Geloff from engaging in unfair competition. The Court held that Hemm’s failed to demonstrate the out of State work was a significant component of its overall business or the restriction would do anything other than preclude ordinary competition.
In light of the evidence presented, the Court ultimately concluded the non-compete agreement was unenforceable. In Ohio, when reviewing a non-compete agreement, the Court has the power to revise or redraft the non-compete agreement to address overbroad provisions and enforce it to the extent necessary to prevent unfair competition. However, the Court is not required to do so, and in the appropriate case, may declare the covenant unenforceable as a matter of law. That is precisely what the Trial Court did in Geloff’s case. As a result, in bringing the litigation, the employer lost not only the prohibited territory and length of time but also the entire agreement’s enforceability.
Geloff is a good illustration of the hazards resulting from pursuing injunctive relief and breach of contract claims on poorly drafted or overbroad non-compete agreements.
If you have questions concerning the scope, breadth, or enforceability of any non-compete agreement you are using in your business, or you have signed as an employee, the attorneys at Pickrel, Schaeffer & Ebeling, can help. For any questions, please contact Mike Sandner at msandner@pselaw.com or call 937.223.1130 for assistance with your particular situation or the process.

The post Appropriate Use of Non-Compete Agreements for Your Business appeared first on Pickrel Schaeffer & Ebeling.

White Lies when Completing an Application for Insurance

Pam Thomas — Thu, 04 Jun 2020 18:35:13 +0000

The Hazards of a “White Lie”

At many different times in our busy lives we have been faced with completing an application for insurance (car, house, property) with its multitude of what appear to be ‘silly’ questions. Questions like, “How far from your property is the nearest fire hydrant? or, “Have you ever smoked? or, Does anyone beside the applicant reside in the dwelling? Normally we just breeze through them without much thought. However, ‘silly’ as these questions may appear, the insurance company is asking them for a very valid reason – to accurately determine the premium cost for the policy being requested. If you fail to accurately answer these questions or tell white lies, the insurance could legally cancel the policy, thus depriving you of the benefits your may have paid for.
In a recent case considered by the Ohio Supreme Court (Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Pusser, 2020-Ohio-2778), Barbara Pusser was driving a car owned and insured by her sister, Diane Lapaze, who was living with her in the Pusser home. On the application for the car insurance Diane Lapaze indicated that she lived alone at the address of the Pusser house. Unfortunately, while driving a vehicle insured in the name of Diane Lapaze, Barbara Pusser struct and killed a pedestrian.
It is a common insurance industry practice to incorporate the application for insurance right into the policy as part of its terms. Because this was the case for Diane Lapaze’s policy, Nationwide filed suit asking the Court to rule that the policy was void because no one other than Diane Lapaze was listed on the application as a member of her household. After lower courts denied their motion, Nationwide appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
After reviewing the case file, the Supreme Court ruled in Nationwide’s favor and declared the policy void, meaning Barbara Pusser had no insurance to cover her potential liability for fatally striking a pedestrian.
How does this apply to you? Pay close attention and completely answer the questions on an application for insurance; don’t cut any corners by not accurately answering the questions in hope of getting a lower premium. You just might find out at the worst possible time that you don’t have the coverage you thought you had paid for.
If you have any questions concerning your insurance policies, coverage or how to handle any potentially inaccurate or incomplete insurance applications, please contact Mike Sandner at msandner@pselaw.com.

The post White Lies when Completing an Application for Insurance appeared first on Pickrel Schaeffer & Ebeling.

Does your Firm or Business have a Potential Business Interruption Claim?

Pam Thomas — Mon, 27 Apr 2020 15:44:21 +0000

Shelter in place closures orders have impacted numerous businesses throughout Ohio. While some may have been able to adapt or operate having been declared “essential” many others have been significantly impacted. A question for every impacted business is likely whether any relief may be available under the entities business interruption coverage, or whether they have such coverage.

Business interruption claims as a result of the pandemic need to be presented specifically, and should not be attempted without the assistance of counsel. There are numerous hurdles to clear in order to have a compensable business interruption claim under most policies from describing the physical damage suffered to avoiding any applicable exclusions. If your business has been closed or significantly impacted as a result of an interruption of activity as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, please don’t hesitate to contact Mike Sandner at Pickrel, Schaeffer and Ebeling. I will review the circumstances of your claim, your policy language, and guide you on the potential options that may be available.

The post Does your Firm or Business have a Potential Business Interruption Claim? appeared first on Pickrel Schaeffer & Ebeling.

Statutes of Limitations Tolled as a Result of COVID-19

Pam Thomas — Fri, 27 Mar 2020 20:25:45 +0000

As individuals and businesses struggle to process and address the impact of the pandemic outbreak on their business, Ohio’s Legislature has come to the aid of individuals and businesses alike to buy them more time with regard to actions that must be taken by certain statutorily or administratively created deadlines.

On March 26, 2020, House Bill 197 was forwarded to the Governor and was signed into law on Friday, March 27, 2020. The Bill, tolls any expiring administrative limitation or statute of limitation created under the Revised Code until July 30, 2020. The Bill is retroactive to March 9, 2020 and is designed to allow individuals or businesses additional time to assess, and/or take, any actions which may have been on the verge of expiring.

Additionally, for individuals or businesses already in litigation, the statute provides some additional relief from pending discovery cut-off and other pretrial deadlines.

The most immediate effect of this statute may come into play with regard to Board of Revision filing deadlines, that are set to expire March 31, 2020. Any business or individual who has taken a closer look at their real estate valuation issues as a result of this pandemic may wish to contact Mike Sandner at Pickrel, Schaeffer and Ebeling Co., L.P.A. to explore whether there is still an opportunity to pursue these claims even after the March 31, 2020 deadline as a result of the passage of House Bill 197.

The post Statutes of Limitations Tolled as a Result of COVID-19 appeared first on Pickrel Schaeffer & Ebeling.

Do you Believe the Value of Your Property is Correct?

Pam Thomas — Wed, 05 Feb 2020 18:54:07 +0000

Or maybe you or your business bought property last year at a value below the Auditor’s recorded fair market value? If either of those circumstances apply, then you should be aware that the deadline to file Complaints is March 31, 2020. Updated real estate tax notices have been sent out, and you should review these for your personal or business real estate to ensure that the valuations are accurate. If you believe there are inaccuracies, or that the stated value no longer reflects the market value of your property, you should consider filing a tax complaint to challenge your valuation. Challenging your valuation may give you the opportunity to benefit from any savings obtained for years to come.

If you have any questions about how to file a complaint, please contact Mike Sandner at Pickrel, Schaeffer & Ebeling, msandner@pselaw.com or call (937) 223-1130 to review your situation.

The post Do you Believe the Value of Your Property is Correct? appeared first on Pickrel Schaeffer & Ebeling.

Commercial Speech and Vulgarity

Pam Thomas — Tue, 07 Jan 2020 16:38:51 +0000

Commercial Speech Continues to Test the Limits of What Is Obscene, Immoral, or Subject to State Regulation

A few months ago, my partner, Gerald McDonald wrote an article cautioning that potentially vulgar speech may quickly be materializing in much more prevalent commercial applications. The subject of Jerry’s article involved vulgarity in trademark registration, but a recent decision from the Seventh District Court of Appeals illustrates a context which may bring the issue much closer to home for most.

In Broke Ass Phone v. Boardman Township Board of Zoning Appeals, 2019-Ohio-4918 the issue before the Court of Appeals was whether or not the Board of Zoning Appeals had erred in prohibiting Broke Ass Phone Company from replacing its commercial street sign in front of its business. The case involved the interplay between Broke Ass Phones right to use its legally registered and legally trademarked name with Boardman Township’s zoning resolution which sought to regulate obscene word or words of immoral character. The Court’s analysis focused on the fact that Broke Ass’s sign would be considered commercial speech. Commercial speech is protected from unwarranted governmental regulation, but the key is “unwarranted governmental regulation.” In an effort to analyze this the Court looked at whether the zoning restriction sought to implement a substantial government interest. While the Court held that there was legitimate governmental interest in preventing the Township’s residents from being exposed to obscene, pornographic or immoral signs, at the end of the day the Court found that the word “Ass” was neither obscene in context, nor immoral. Although there was a vigorous dissent, the Court held that the State could not regulate speech that posed no danger to the asserted State interest and therefore held that it was unconstitutional to restrict its use.

Municipalities should take note of the analysis this employed by the Seventh District’s decision, as well as the Seventh District’s comments on the evidence that the Court would have expected to have seen submitted in a case like this. For business owners the case provides another example of, and possible support, to push the envelope in this context.

If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact Michael W. Sandner at Pickrel, Schaeffer & Ebeling Co., L.P.A. to review or discuss.

The post Commercial Speech and Vulgarity appeared first on Pickrel Schaeffer & Ebeling.

PS&E 2020 Super Lawyers

Pam Thomas — Wed, 18 Dec 2019 19:06:24 +0000

Donald Schweller
Alan Schaeffer
Andrew Storar
Mike Sandner
James Kelleher

We are pleased to announced that five of our attorneys have been selected as 2020 Ohio Super Lawyers as published in the Ohio Super Lawyer Magazine. Those selected include James W. Kelleher, Michael W. Sandner, Alan B. Schaeffer, Donald G. Schweller and Andrew C. Storar. Each year, no more than five percent of attorneys in the state of Ohio are chosen to be listed as an Ohio Super Lawyer. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys. Pickrel, Schaeffer & Ebeling Co., LPA, serving clients for over 100 years, would like to congratulate these fine attorneys on this outstanding accomplishment. For more information about PS&E please call (937) 223-1130 or visit us online at www.pselaw.com.

The post PS&E 2020 Super Lawyers appeared first on Pickrel Schaeffer & Ebeling.