As I indicated to almost all of you, my clients, at one time or another, I decided to try to bring a lawsuit that would be as straightforward, and would cost as little in time and money, as we could possibly make it.  That is why I filed the suit in the Ohio Supreme Court seeking the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.  Even though writs of mandamus directed to public officials are extremely rare and extremely difficult to obtain given the high legal standard that has to be satisfied to justify such extraordinary relief, I thought it was worth a shot in order to shortcut the litigation as much as possible.  I thought we had an especially good chance of getting such an unusual remedy because the Supreme Court had already issued a writ of mandamus to the County Auditor in August 2008 directing him to place your properties on his tax-exempt list.

Well, earlier today, the Ohio Supreme Court told us we'd have to do it the harder, longer and more expensive way.  The Court apparently decided that the extraordinary remedy of mandamus was not appropriate for our case given that we have other remedies provided by law to address our situation and provide us with effective relief.  That is indeed part of the very high showing we had to make in order to justify issuing a writ of mandamus -- that we did not have an effective remedy through other means.  As I said, apparently the Court feels we cannot resort to mandamus given that we have other legal claims that can be brought.  The Court issued a one-line Order dismissing our case without a further opinion.

While I am disappointed, I am not terribly surprised.  I thought we had a good chance of getting the mandamus issued because the Court had previously issued the August 2008 writ of mandamus to Auditor Stewart.  However, in light of our other remedies, the Court is obviously not going to go along with such an extraordinary remedy of mandamus despite (or perhaps because of) having previously issued a mandamus order in our favor 18 months ago.

So, we will now file a new action in another court to pursue the other remedies we have that served as the apparent reason the Supreme Court declined to issue a writ of mandamus.  I expect to have that new lawsuit filed by the beginning of next week.  Check back here at your convenience to see the announcement of the filing and, on the "Key Documents" page, a copy of the filing.

I am sorry this will now take a little longer and will consume a lot more taxpayer resources than the mandamus action would have.  That is the result I was trying to avoid.  Oh well ...

This is not a defeat -- it is merely a disappointment.  I still intend to win this battle in the end.  Thank you for your continued support.

This week, the City of Lorain sent letters to almost every property owner in the CRA 3 and 4 districts offering to refund their $400-500 application fee and to give them a one-year tax abatement on their homes.  This is the result of a settlement agreement between the City and Lorain County Auditor Mark Stewart of a previous lawsuit between them in the Lorain County Common Pleas Court as approved by Judge Betleski.

But the property owners are required to sign a release and waiver of their rights to benefit from the results in the Ohio Supreme Court case that was just filed on December 31, 2009.  The 111 property owners who joined in that suit seek an order from the Supreme Court restoring the full 15-year 100% tax abatement that these properties were promised by the City.  Anyone who signs the paperwork and returns it to the City will lose his or her right to benefit by any favorable ruling coming down from the Supreme Court.  You have to release your legal rights to get the refund the City is offering.

The average homeowner in the CRA 3 and 4 districts pays about $2,000 per year in real estate taxes.  So, the City's offer to people with homes built before April 2006 consists of refunding the application fee (~$500) and a one-year abatement (~$2,000), for a total value of approximately $2,500.  The full 15-year tax abatement that was promised and agreed to, and that my clients are seeking to have restored by order of the Ohio Supreme Court, is worth on average about $30,000.  You do the math.  Is an offer to give up your rights to benefit from abatements worth $30,000 in exchange for benefits worth only $2,500 a fair deal?  We think not.

In addition, the City's offer letter has proven to be misleading to many of our clients.  Some of our clients were led to believe this settlement was of the Ohio Supreme Court case.  IT IS NOT.  It is a settlement of a prior lawsuit between the City of Lorain and the Lorain County Auditor.  The property owners were not even parties to that case at the time the settlement agreement was entered into and approved by the Court.

Some of our clients mistakenly concluded that, because they were receiving this letter directly from the City, this settlement was agreed to by our office and had our approval.  IT DOES NOT.  We were not asked to approve this settlement proposal and we do not.  The letter was sent to our clients without our prior knowledge or permission.  We think it was inappropriate for the City of Lorain to send this letter to our clients knowing full well that they had legal representation for this matter.

Finally, we are concerned about the legality of the City's settlement offer in light of the Mayor's veto of the CRA legislation that had been passed by City Council.  We are uncertain whether the veto, and the fact that City Council has not yet enacted new legislation affecting the CRA 3 and 4 districts, voided the authority for the City to enter into this settlement agreement with the Auditor's office.  This injects yet another potential flaw into this whole process.

The only clients who may benefit from the proposed settlement, assuming the City has the proper authority to enter into it, are those property owners whose homes were built after April 2006.  The relatively few of our clients who fall into this category are supposed to receive the full 15-year 100% tax abatement.  This is what we are seeking from the Ohio Supreme Court action.  So, for anyone whose home was built after April 2006, if you are satisfied that the City is offering you the full 15-year 100% tax abatement you were promised, and that it is guaranteed to be given to you automatically and without having to meet any other conditions, then it is probably a good result to accept the City's offer and relinquish your rights in the Ohio Supreme Court case because you will be receiving all of the relief we are seeking in that litigation.  But this applies only to the small number of our clients with homes built after April 2006.

We urge our clients with homes built before April 2006 not to agree to this unfair and misleading offer.  To our clients who are parties to the Ohio Supreme Court case -- please do not sign the documents sent to you by the City or return them to the City.  If you choose to go to City Hall and meet with City officials, please do not sign anything there.

If you have any doubts or any questions about what you should do, or what your legal rights are or what claims you would be giving up, please contact our office.  I am available to speak with my clients about this matter at your convenience.  Thank you for your attention to this important message.

Here is your link to the Ohio Supreme Court's online docket for our mandamus challenge to Auditor Stewart's refusal to place the properties in CRAs 3 and 4 on the tax exempt list:

Docket for Case No. 09-2362 from Ohio Supreme Court website

On January 25, 2010, Lorain County Auditor Mark Stewart, the Respondent in the Ohio Supreme Court case, filed an Answer to Relators' complaint seeking a writ of mandamus against him.  Stewart's Answer has been added to the Key Documents page of this website.

On Thursday afternoon, December 31, 2009, we filed a complaint in the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of 111 property owners seeking a writ of mandamus to require the Lorain County Auditor to restore the CRA tax exemptions to their properties.  I will post an electronic copy of the Complaint for Writ of Mandamus (and subsequent court filings in this case) in the "Key Documents" section of this website.  Look for the as-filed version of the Complaint to appear starting Sunday, January 3, 2010.

Please see the "News and Events," "Calendar" and "Messages from Counsel" sections of the website for legal updates and information on case status.  I am going to put password protection on the "Calendar" page because I will want to preview key dates for the litigation so that our clients know this information without making it publicly available.

Many thanks to each of our clients for your continuing help and support of the effort to get the County Auditor to comply with his legal obligations under state law and City of Lorain ordinances.  We have much hard work ahead of us to bring our efforts to a successful resolution.  In the meantime, we wish each of you a safe, healthy, happy and prosperous New Year!

Eric Zagrans, January 1, 2010, at 9:05 a.m.

IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WHO WISH TO PARTICIPATE IN THE LEGAL CHALLENGE TO THE AUDITOR'S DECISION REMOVING YOUR PROPERTY FROM THE TAX EXEMPT LIST

As many of you know, I was very unhappy with having to increase the cost of participating in the group legal challenge.  I have spent the last two weeks figuring out how to reduce the fees from the number I posted on this site two weeks ago.  After further review, I have decided to significantly lower the cost back down to approximately where I originally expected.  This final cost information for all participating property owners is now available on the password protected page "Message from Counsel" along with further messages about when and how I expect to commence the legal challenge and who has agreed to be included in the effort.

Even though the original date for joining has passed, there is still time to be included.  Anyone who lets me know they wish to participate by 9:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 29, 2009, will be included.

Many thanks to everyone who is participating and supporting these efforts.

Eric Zagrans, December 27, 2009, at 4:45 p.m.

IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WHO SIGNED-UP TO PARTICIPATE IN THE GROUP EFFORT:

Information regarding participation in the group legal effort is now available on the password protected page "Message from Counsel."

Please use your user name and password to access this important information.

Thank you.

Eric Zagrans, December 12, 2009, at 2:45 p.m.