Firm Logo 2010June 2012
Family Law Newsletter 
     Proudly Serving Our Clients Since 1992
                          
In This Issue
Introduction
The State of Our State
Article Corner
Court Update
A Moment of Levity
Join Our Mailing List
Quick Links
JeffFanger EHC 
       
            May has been an exciting month for a couple of reasons here at Fanger & Associates LLC. First, we want to announce our first seminar with the Small Business Development Center will be held at their downtown location at 2390 Prospect Avenue on July 19. I will be providing attendees with information on intellectual property and how to protect it. For additional information or to ask about attendance, please email [email protected].

 

            I also want to announce two new additions to our staff; Aaron Kimbrell as a Program Attorney and Caitlin Warner as our Law Clerk.  We are very pleased to welcome Aaron to our firm and add bankruptcy, credit card defense and foreclosure defense to our list of available legal services. Aaron has several years of legal experience and was previously the head of the bankruptcy department at Amourgis and Associates. He has already demonstrated his expertise by working on cases here from day one. We encourage anyone with questions regarding bankruptcy or credit card or foreclosure defense to contact Aaron at our Highland Heights office.

 

            We are also very happy to have Caitlin as a part of our staff and we appreciate her time spent here while she is working towards her J.D. from the Case Western Reserve University School of Law. Keep in mind that as our staff grows, so does our ability to further serve your needs. Please do not hesitate to give us a call with your legal questions, or to let your friends and family know that we can help. As always, call our Highland Heights office at 440.605.9641 to speak with one of our dedicated attorneys.

 

            Thank you for your readership and enjoy the start of summer.

 
 

Jeffrey J. Fanger

 


The State of Our State  

Changes in Ohio Law

SB 310 - Exotic Animal Ownership

 

            On June 6, 2012 Governor John Kasich signed into law Senate Bill 310 which regulates the sale and ownership of exotic animals in Ohio. This bill was brought to the attention of lawmakers when Terry Thompson of Zanesville released 50 exotic animals, and all were tragically killed for the safety of the public.

 

            The bill will be effective as of September 6 and by the end of 2012, all exotic animals mentioned in SB 310 must legally be registered with their respective fee. "By October 1, 2013, owners would have to obtain a permit and pay a fee to the Ohio Department of Agriculture. As of January 1, 2014, owners without permits could have their animals seized through local humane societies."

 

            People who already own snakes shorter than 10 feet long will be able to keep and breed them, although those listed on the restricted list must be registered with the state. Those who do not already own restricted animals such as hyenas, elephants, rhinos, komodo dragons, alligators or crocodiles will not be able to obtain them. Owners with animals on the restricted species list will have to ensure them for between $200,000 and $1 million.

 

             Historically, Ohio has been one of seven states that did not regulate individual ownership of exotic animals. In conjunction with a mandatory "criminal background check of current exotic-animal owners seeking permits," the new regulations should help to prevent future tragedies like the one in Zanesville.

 

 

To read the full bill, click here. 

To read the Columbus Dispatch Article about the bill, click here.

 

Article Corner LegalnewsPic
Family Law Informational Articles                      

Crain's Cleveland Business

ADVISER: In uncertain tax climate, carefully plan income, deductions

 

            Planning for 2013 taxes now may seem overzealous, but in this time of uncertainty, having a financial cushion is wise. Effective January 1, federal income taxes could increase significantly if Congress does not enact new legislation. Some potential increases would be on "dividend and ordinary income from 15% and 35%, respectively, both to 39.6%. In addition, tax rates on long-term capital gains are scheduled to increase from 15% to 20% and a new 3.8% tax on unearned income [will] begin for high-income individuals."

 

            Whether or not Congress enacts new legislation, many will face a hike in tax rates that require planning and review. "To the extent that you have control over timing and realization of your potential income and deductions, you should consider the tax consequences and the relative benefits and costs of your decisions." In addition, investments should be reviewed for tax benefits or consequences.

 

            Mr. Janosek advises that owners of C corporations declare and pay dividends in 2012, as it may be the most advantageous year to do so in the near future. He suggests tapping excess funds within the corporation in 2012, since it is a surety that the tax rate will be 15% or less for those qualified dividends.

 

            Janosek also advises investors with capital gains to sell profitable investments to take advantage of 2012's tax rates on capital gains. He cautions, however, blindly selling without analyzing the future potential return on that asset. Although taxes may be higher in the future, selling to simply "take advantage" of the current rate may cause you to miss future growth and ultimately end up with a lower end-result.

 

            The potential benefits of converting from an IRA to a Roth IRA are also something that should be discussed with a tax advisor on a personal basis. While this year there is no limitation on income level to qualify for a Roth conversion, age and tax situation will influence the outcome of this transition.

 

            For those lucky enough to give sizable gifts, Janosek advises doing so in 2012 for those with substantial net worth. "If a new tax law isn't passed, the estate and gift exemption will fall to $1 million per person" from $5 million per person.

 

            Since the tax situation is iffy for almost everyone right now, the best advice as given by Mr. Janosek is, "Stay tuned. And flexible."

 

            To read the full article, click here.

 

Candice BradleyCourt Update
Recent Court Decisions of Interest in Family Law

Wise v. Wise, 196 Ohio App.3d 533, 2011-Ohio-4772

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Summit County

 

            

            In an Ohio Court of Appeals case decided September 21, 2011, Judge Moore affirmed Summit County's Court of Common Pleas judgment that the defendant husband, Kelvin Wise, owed a duty of ordinary care to his former wife, Jill Wise, and that their divorce judgment did not stop Ms. Wise from filing a negligence action against Mr. Wise.

           

            Kelvin and Jill Wise were married for several years and lived in Michigan together through October 2007, until their divorce was finalized. While still married, Kelvin managed four rental properties that were jointly owned by the couple, one of which was located at 1899 Ashley Drive. Jill was declared responsible financially for the Ashley Drive property and all associated debts once the couple divorced. After the two legally separated, Kelvin was ordered to leave the home, per the divorce decree, on December 1, 2007. Kelvin refused to leave as first ordered and Jill contacted the local police, who forced him to leave.

           

            On December 3, 2007, one day after Kelvin was removed from the home by authorities, Kelvin had the gas to the Ashley Drive property shut off. Kelvin did not shut off any of the other utilities, including electricity, water or sewer service, all of which were also in his name. He also failed to inform Jill that he had ordered the gas to be shut off. While, at the time, no one was living in the Ashley Drive home, gas was the only source of heat to the house. The final bill went to Kelvin at his new address, and Jill was unaware that he had made any changes to the house or the utilities.

           

            On January 23, 2008, a neighbor called the realty office to report a large amount of water in the front yard of 1899 Ashley Drive. The pipes in the home had burst due to the gas shut off and their subsequent freezing. Jill paid $44,227 for repairs and renovations to the home, as it was her responsibility post-divorce.

 

            On January 22, 2009, Jill Wise alleged misrepresentation, fraud, and damage to property in her suit against Kelvin Wise. She filed an amended complaint on February 6, 2009, also "alleging negligence, financial misconduct, breach of contract and misrepresentation." On August 4, 2009, Kelvin "filed a motion to dismiss, alleging lack of jurisdiction and improper venue based on the Michigan divorce proceedings."   On October 18, 2010, Kelvin was sentenced by a jury to pay "$24,000 for malicious conduct, $24,000 for negligence, and one dollar in punitive damages." The court confirmed the judgment three days later with the addition of interest and costs.

 

            Kelvin Wise then appealed, raising the following four assignments of error; first, that he did not owe Jill a duty to maintain the property and therefore could not be considered negligent. Second, that because he did not owe a duty to Jill, she could not accuse him of malice. Third, that the trial court should have dismissed the action under res judicata, i.e. that the action was relitigating an already addressed claim from their divorce. Finally, Kelvin's fourth assignment of error was that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment against him.

 

            Kelvin's first assignment of error was overruled because although the property was not in his name, he still owed ordinary care to Jill and the property and any reasonable person could have foreseen the damage that was done as a result of his actions. Kelvin's second assignment of error was also overruled as it was based on the first claim that he did not owe any legal duty to his former wife. Kelvin's third claim was also overruled since "there [was] no evidence that Mr. Wise's negligence was actually and directly litigated in the divorce action, or that any conclusion was reached on the issue of negligence." Kelvin's final claim was also overruled for the same reason as the second; it was based upon his argument that he did not owe his former wife a duty, and it was decided that he did.

 

A Moment of Levity    
A Little Humor to Brighten Your Day

  
 
 
For more daily snapshots, visit www.jasonlove.com
Firm Logo 2010 
The opinions and views expressed in this newsletter are solely those of the author of the article and/or Fanger & Associates LLC. Articles appearing in this newsletter are intended to provide broad, general information about the law. This newsletter is sent to clients and friends of Fanger & Associates LLC, as well as Ohio businesses and Ohio nonprofit corporations as identified through their registration with the Ohio Secretary of State, including organizations with which Fanger & Associates LLC has no prior contact. Before applying this information to any specific legal problem, readers are urged to seek advice from an attorney. If you have any questions regarding any topic in this publication and you already have a lawyer, please contact your lawyer. If you do not already have counsel, please feel free to contact Fanger & Associates LLC and we will be happy to assist you.
ADVERTISEMENT ONLY