Crain’s Cleveland Business OZ Article Quotes Mike Sikora as OZ Resource

Mike Sikora was interviewed for a story on Ohio’s OZ Program that was featured in last week’s Crain’s Cleveland Business.  To review that article that provided a synopsis on Round 2 of the Ohio Opportunity Zone Program, specifically as to Northeast Ohio, click here

Sikora Law Clients Awarded 35% of All Ohio OZ Tax Credits

Round 2 of Ohio’s Opportunity Zone Program was just completed.  Sikora Law broke its previous record by preparing and/or submitting 51 Ohio Opportunity Zone Applications for Round 2 of that Program.  Sikora Law Clients received approximately 35% of all Ohio Opportunity Zone tax credits that were issued in 2021 (topping our record in Round 1 of 21% and 42 Applications).

Sikora Law has also helped a number of its Clients monetize their awards through a sale and transfer process that allows developers and their investors to receive a near immediate return on their investment in Ohio Opportunity Zones.

American Land Title Association’s Title News Features Sikora Law’s Appellate Victory

The American Land Title Association’s Title News Online featured Sikora Law’s 32nd appellate victory (Clinton v. Home Investment Fund V, LP, 2020-Ohio-4555 ) on the subject of lis pendens.   Check out that article on ALTA’s website by clicking here.

Sikora Law Celebrates 33rd Title Appellate Victory

Ohio’s Sixth District Court of Appeals recently affirmed an Order issued by the Ottawa County Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment in favor of an party that was represented by our lawyers.  See Nationstar Mtge., LLC v. Cody, 6th Dist. Ottawa Case No. OT-18-041, 2020-Ohio-5553.

In Cody, the borrower received $938,250 in exchange for a mortgage granted on two adjacent parcels located on Put-in-Bay Island.  One parcel contained a residential structure.  The other parcel was mostly vacant, but a portion of a detached garage was located on that “vacant” parcel, along with a private boat dock.   The heirs argued that the legal description contained in the Mortgage listed only the street address of the residential parcel.   Our lawyers presented evidence to the Trial Court showing that the Mortgage described both parcels by metes and bounds and by parcel numbers.   Our lawyers also produced evidence showing that the borrower had intended to mortgage the vacant parcel, such as the appraisal, which included both the detached garage and the private dock in the valuation of the property.  They also presented evidence showing that no separate street address had ever been assigned to the vacant parcel, and thus no such other street address could have been included in the description of the property to be encumbered.

The Trial Court granted summary judgment, finding that the Mortgage was unambiguous and should be enforced as to both parcels described in the legal description.  On appeal, the heirs claimed error based on the Trial Court’s refusal to consider the heirs’ testimony about their father’s claimed statements that the Mortgage wasn’t supposed to encumber the vacant lot.  The Appellate Court further found that the legal description included in the Mortgage clearly and unambiguously described both the residential parcel and the vacant parcel, and therefore affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of our Client.

To review the Cody Decision, click here.

Non-paying Tenant Evicted Despite Appeal – Due to Procedural Missteps

Both the number and significance of cases involving disputes between landlords and tenants continue to rise.  Ohio’s Twelfth District Court of Appeals just decided a case in which a tenant was evicted for failure to pay rent, and the advantages one party had over the other proved costly for the losing party.  Landings at Beckett Ridge v. Holmes, 2020-Ohio-6900.

The landlord obtained an order from the Trial Court evicting the non-paying tenant.  The tenant appealed from that decision, which normally would have allowed the tenant more time to occupy the premises until the appeal (and all of the litigation) was completed.  However, that tenant did not file a Motion to Stay the underlying Trial Court Judgment.  As a result, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, the tenant was evicted, and the tenant no longer had any rights in the premises.

To review the Holmes case, click here.