The Gavel

Ohio is Number 1 in...

2007-09-18T13:43:00.000-07:00

...Foreclosures!

When you think of Ohio, what do you think of? Football? The Ohio River? Lake Erie? The Buckeyes? Well, add this to your list: Home Foreclosures.

In Ohio, more than anywhere else in the United States, people are losing their homes. In the first six months of 2007, Ohio recorded 44,594 foreclosures. The state's foreclosure rate has been higher than the national average for every quarter since the end of 1998. Ohio has had more home foreclosures than any state except Florida and California.

While the exact reason for this phenomenon isn't certain, several factors play key roles: Ohio’s sagging economy, unwise investments by mortgage brokers, and increased payments under adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs). An estimated $14 billion in Ohio ARMs will see their rates adjust over the next five years. It's possible that many people with ARMs will see their monthly mortgage payments nearly double in the near future.

If you are behind on your home payment and the bank is threatening foreclosure, give us a call to speak with an attorney about your legal rights and options.

Joseph H. Spring, Esq.
MARK E. GODBEY & ASSOCIATES
708 Walnut Street, Suite 600
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
(513) 241 - 6650 phone
(513) 241 - 6649 fax

Immigration issues on the rise in Cincinnati

2007-08-20T09:29:00.000-07:00

It seems like the word “immigration” is on the tip of everyone’s tongue these days in Cincinnati, Ohio. No matter which side of the debate you stand on, one thing is clear: immigration topics are hotter than the recent weather.

One need look no further than the pages of our local newspaper. The Enquirer has recently dedicated numerous front pages of its Sunday edition to reporting on immigration issues. First, the Enquirer followed the story of Maha Dakar, a Palestinian immigrant and mother of four, who is facing deportation to Jordan in October. (For more on her story, click here.)

More recently, The Enquirer offered an objective overview of the U.S. immigration system. The Enquirer found that the U.S. immigration system is so complex, and so difficult to correctly navigate, that it is almost “universally described as broken.” (For more on this report, click here.)

If you or someone you know needs help navigating through this difficult system, call us today for a free consultation. We have experienced, licensed attorneys who can help you through the immigration “maze” and we would be happy to answer any of your questions.

Blake Somers, Attorney at Law
Mark E. Godbey & Associates
708 Walnut Street, Suite 600
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
(513) 241 - 6650 phone
(513) 241 - 6649 fax

Adjustable Rate Mortgages Expected to Fuel Increased Bankruptcy Filings

2007-06-19T12:53:00.000-07:00

By Patrick Conway, Attorney at Law

Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs) are expected to lead to an increase in bankruptcy filings over the next few years. Many home buyers in recent years financed their home purchases with mortgage loans that include adjustable interest rates. Often, ARMs were offered to purchasers with bad credit who could not qualify for traditional mortgages with a fixed interest rate.

Interest rate adjustments of 6% over the life of the loan are common with ARMs. This type of increase could add hundreds of dollars to a monthly mortgage payment. An increase of $200 per month would likely prove disastrous to many homeowners.

Until recently, borrowers with ARMs counted on rising real estate values to allow them to refinance their mortgages before the higher payments took effect. Rising home values meant increased equity that allowed people to refinance the mortgage. Now, however, with declining real estate values common, borrowers often have little or no equity in their home. Without sufficient equity, refinancing the mortgage becomes much more difficult.

Many people are unable to afford the higher mortgage payments. The result is an increase in foreclosures that is expected to continue for the next few years.

If you or anyone you know has questions about foreclosures or bankruptcy please call our office to speak with a bankruptcy professional.

Patrick J. Conway, Attorney at Law
Mark E. Godbey & Associates
708 Walnut Street, Suite 600
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
(513) 241 - 6650 phone
(513) 241 - 6649 fax

Protecting Custody for Deployed Parents

2007-06-19T12:41:00.000-07:00

The House of Representatives moved Wednesday, June 6th, to protect deployed service members from losing legal custody of their children. An amendment to the 2008 defense authorization bill, approved by voice vote, prevents states from making permanent custody changes while a service member is deployed on a contingency operation. It also prohibits a court from considering a military member's deployment as a reason for denying custody. Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio, who sponsored the amendment, said he is trying to provide some peace of mind to deployed parents.

B. Bradley Berry, Esq.
Mark E. Godbey & Associates
708 Walnut Street, Suite 600
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-2022
Ph (513) 241-6650
Fax (513) 241-6649

DUI Consequences For CDL Drivers

2007-05-08T08:18:00.000-07:00

Almost everyone knows that a DUI can be devastating to any driver, resulting in license suspensions, fines and possible jail time. Yet, for Commercial Driver’s License holders the penalties can be even more harsh. This article is meant to outline the consequences of DUIs for CDL drivers in Ohio. For more detailed and up to date information please refer to the most recent version of the Ohio Revised Code - ORC.

First off, the term used for operating a vehicle intoxicated in Ohio is no longer the familiar term DUI (Driving Under the Influence). The correct term, and more importantly, the term used by the Ohio courts is OVI, or Operating a Vehicle Intoxicated.

The blood alcohol concentration required for a CDL-OVI when driving a commercial vehicle is lower than that which is required for a regular OVI. A regular OVI requires a .08% blood alcohol breath test, yet a CDL-OVI when driving a commercial vehicle only requires a .04% blood alcohol breath test. The blood and urine tests for CDL holders are also roughly half the level required for regular OVI’s. See ORC 4506.15(A) and ORC 4511.19.

Additionally, a CDL holder driving any vehicle under the influence of any controlled substance is a CDL-OVI. This applies to commercial vehicles as well as to private vehicles. See ORC 4506.15(A)(5).

CDL suspensions for OVI’s are especially harsh. There is a mandatory one year CDL disqualification for a first OVI, regardless of whether the operator was in a commercial or private vehicle. No driving privileges may be granted for any CDL suspension. See ORC 4506.16(D)(1) and 4506.161.

If a CDL holder is in a commercial vehicle, then a first refusal results in an automatic one year CDL suspension. A “refusal” refers to any driver who refuses to submit to either a breath, urine or blood test when a law enforcement official has reasonable cause to believe that the driver may be under the influence. Thus, even if the CDL driver is not actually under the influence, if he refuses the test in a commercial vehicle, his CDL could be suspended for one year. See ORC 4506.16(D)(1).

And last but not least, the Ohio Revised Code requires a lifetime CDL suspension for a second OVI conviction or for a second refusal in a commercial vehicle. See ORC 4506.16(D)(2).

If you or anyone you know have questions about an OVI or a CDL or both, feel free to call our firm to discuss the matter with an attorney.

Posted by: Joseph Spring, Mark E. Godbey & Associates, (513) 241-6650

Undocumented Immigrants in the Greater Cincinnati Area

2006-12-21T13:53:00.000-08:00

Tough Stance
Originally uploaded by J Spring.

With all of the recent reports on the border between Mexico and the United States, much of the happenings in areas far from the border, such as Cincinnati, have gone relatively unnoticed. Yet laws are changing in areas far removed from the border, and so are methods of enforcing these laws.

To sum up the situation, national arrests, fines and deportations are all up. For example, in 1999 there were 24 undocumented workers arrested on job sites in the U.S. In 2002 there were 25 arrests. In 2006, there have been over 3,000 such arrests. As for fines, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) received a $15 Million payment on a single worksite case in 2005. This one payment was greater than the sum of all fines issued by ICE in the prior eight years. For details, click on this link.

Roundups in the Greater Cincinnati area are also on the rise. In May of 2006 approximately 70 undocumented aliens were taken into custody. The arrests were the result of a prior investigation that had apparently uncovered evidence that a Northern Kentucky company, Fischer Homes, had been intentionally using undocumented labor in an effort to increase profit margins.

On November 29 of 2006 ICE agents arrested 32 undocumented aliens involved in the construction of The Ascent at Roebling Bridge, a new condominium building being touted as the jewel of the Covington skyline. Covington based Corporex Construction is the developer of the project. The general contractor is Dugan and Meyers Construction Company of Cincinnati. Link.

North of the River, in Butler County Ohio, state law enforcement officials are being trained so that they can enforce immigration laws. Normally, issues of deportation and immigration are purely federal issues, and are not handled by state agents. Yet Butler County is taking a tough stance on the issue, becoming the first community in the Midwestern United States to offer such training. The photo above is the Butler County Sheriff standing next to a "subtle" sign recently posted just outside the Butler County Jail.

This has caught the attention of civil rights attorneys. Some say that to expect local law enforcement to understand the intracacies of federal law and the politics behind such laws, is asking a lot. Others believe that it is unrealistic to expect local law enforcement to be able to distinguish between "enforcing immigration laws" and "racial profiling". Link

SURVEY: BANKRUPTCY FILINGS ON THE RISE AGAIN, LIKELY TO RETURN TO PRE-2005 LAW LEVELS DURING NEXT YEAR

2006-10-23T12:18:00.000-07:00

NACBA Surveys 700 U.S. Bankruptcy Attorneys on Eve of October 17, 2006 Anniversary of Controversial Law Change; Over Nine Out of 10 Say Law Has Simply Increased the Costs of Bankruptcy, With No Benefits.

WASHINGTON, D.C.//October 4, 2006//As the controversial federal bankruptcy overhaul approaches its first anniversary, a new survey of 700 members of the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys (NACBA) is the latest proof that the ill-conceived law is failing on an across-the-board basis. More than two-thirds (68.5 percent) of those surveyed said that their bankruptcy filings are up in the third quarter of 2006, compared of the first half of the year. Almost three out of five bankruptcy attorneys (57.5 percent) now expect filings to reach their pre-overhaul levels by or before the laws second anniversary in 2007.

According to the NACBA survey, the primary impact of the new law appears to be more paperwork hassles and higher expenses for already cash-strapped consumers. More than three quarters of bankruptcy attorneys said that the time involved in preparing a bankruptcy filing has gone up by 50 percent or more. Respondents variously estimated the extra time at 50-75 percent (26.5 percent), 75-100 percent (23.1 percent), and more than 100 percent in increased time (27.1 percent). When asked if the increased paperwork required under [the new law] changed the results or simply increased the costs of bankruptcy, more than nine out of 10 (92.8 percent) said mostly increased the costs while fewer than one in 100 (0.7 percent) said mostly improved the results.

Henry Sommer, president of the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys (NACBA) and a Philadelphia bankruptcy attorney, said:

The bankruptcy law changes were premised on the faulty assumption, promoted by the credit card industry, that there was massive abuse going on by thousands and thousands of people who could pay their debts. In reality, the vaunted means test of the new bill has revealed that the creditors lobby was dead wrong -- virtually none of the people who file chapter 7 cases are able to pay more. Bankruptcy is still very much available and still very much needed, even though consumers now have to pay more and go through more paperwork to get the required help.

NACBA Officer Ike Shulman, a bankruptcy attorney in San Jose, Calif., said:

In practice, the new bankruptcy law changes have proven to be a nearly total bust in terms of what the proponents of the changes forecast. The only good news here is that the law is so flawed and has been interpreted in such a way that some of the dire consequences many of us feared fortunately have not come to pass. Unfortunately, this is of no comfort to the consumers who legitimately need bankruptcy relief and now are forcedto clear more arbitrary and pointless hurdles in the process.

Key findings of the survey include the following:

Contrary to what proponents of the law projected, fewer than a third of bankruptcy attorneys are seeing an increase in forced Chapter 13 repayment filings. Only 31.4 percent of attorneys have seen an increase in filings since the bankruptcy law changes went into effect last year. Fewer than one in 20 (4.5 percent) reported seeing a major increase.

More than three out of five bankruptcy attorneys report a jump in consumer inquiries about bankruptcy. Comparing the third quarter to the first half of the year, 71.6 percent of those surveyed are seeing increased demand, with more than one in five (21.7 percent) reporting a major increase.

Very few filings are about wasteful spending. In the vast majority of cases, consumers are forced into bankruptcy by major and unforeseen expenses (joblessness at 39.6 percent and medical expenses/other medical costs at 33 percent) or combinations of factors (mortgage/home-related debt at 64 percent and increased credit card interest rates at 41.1 percent). Fewer than one in 10 cases (8.1 percent) handled by bankruptcy attorneys were linked to discretionary spending habits, according to the survey. (Note: Two responses were permitted to this question, which is why the reported total exceeds 100 percent.)

The NACBA survey of 3,000 U.S. bankruptcy attorneys resulted in a strong response rate of 24 percent (714 completed surveys). The survey was conducted on a secure, Web-based site from September 25-28, 2006. Only one response was permitted per individual. Full survey findings are available online at http://www.thehastingsgroup.com/NACBASurvey/Summary.html.

The new survey is the latest NACBA look at the practical impact of the 2005 bankruptcy law. On February 22, 2006, NACBA released the first analysis of tens of thousands of consumers seeking protection since a new federal bankruptcy law went into effect inOctober 2005. The data showed that of 61,355 of the earliest consumers seen by credit counseling firms the required first stop under the new bankruptcy law nearly all (97 percent) were unable to repay any debts and that an overwhelming majority were forced into dire financial straits by circumstances beyond their control, such as the loss of a job, catastrophic medical expenses or the death of a spouse.

On September 7, 2006, NACBA reported that the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of New York had reluctantly interpreted the controversial U.S. bankruptcy reform law to mean that those going through bankruptcy may not tithe to their church or make other charitable donations ... until after they have paid off credit card companies and other creditors. Before the new law went into effect, bankruptcy court judges were required to permit debtors to tithe a portion of their income on a regular basis. On September 29, 2006, the U.S. Senate acted to clarify that the concern raised by NACBA was not intended to be a change made under the poorly crafted 2005 amendments.

ABOUT NACBA

The National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys (http://www.nacba.org) is the only national organization dedicated to serving the needs of consumer bankruptcy attorneys and protecting the rights of consumer debtors in bankruptcy.Formed in 1992,NACBA now has more thanmembers located in all 50 states and Puerto Rico.

CONTACT: Ailis Aaron Wolf, (703) 276-3265 or

EDITORS NOTE: A streaming audio replay of the news event will be available on the Web at http://www.nacba.org as of 6 p.m. ET on October 4, 2006.

Credit and Divorce

2006-10-10T08:01:00.000-07:00

By Patrick J. Conway

Mary and Bill recently divorced. Their divorce decree stated that Bill would pay the balances on their three joint credit card accounts. Months later, after Bill neglected to pay off these accounts, all three creditors contacted Mary for payment. She referred them to the divorce decree, insisting that she was not responsible for the accounts. The creditors correctly stated that they were not parties to the decree and that Mary was still legally responsible for paying off the couple's joint accounts. Mary later found out that the late payments appeared on her credit report.

If you've recently been through a divorce - or are contemplating one - you may want to look closely at issues involving credit. Understanding the different kinds of credit accounts opened during a marriage may help illuminate the potential benefits - and pitfalls - of each.

There are two types of credit accounts: individual and joint. You can permit authorized persons to use the account with either. When you apply for credit - whether a charge card or a mortgage loan - you'll be asked to select one type.

Individual or Joint Account?

Individual Account: Your income, assets, and credit history are considered by the creditor. Whether you are married or single, you alone are responsible for paying off the debt. The account will appear on your credit report, and may appear on the credit report of any "authorized" user. However, if you live in a community property state (Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington, or Wisconsin), you and your spouse may be responsible for debts incurred during the marriage, and the individual debts of one spouse may appear on the credit report of the other.

Advantages/Disadvantages: If you're not employed outside the home, work part-time, or have a low-paying job, it may be difficult to demonstrate a strong financial picture without your spouse's income. But if you open an account in your name and are responsible, no one can negatively affect your credit record.

Joint Account: Your income, financial assets, and credit history - and your spouse's - are considerations for a joint account. No matter who handles the household bills, you and your spouse are responsible for seeing that debts are paid. A creditor who reports the credit history of a joint account to credit bureaus must report it in both names (if the account was opened after June 1, 1977).

Advantages/Disadvantages: An application combining the financial resources of two people may present a stronger case to a creditor who is granting a loan or credit card. But because two people applied together for the credit, each is responsible for the debt. This is true even if a divorce decree assigns separate debt obligations to each spouse. Former spouses who run up bills and don't pay them can hurt their ex-partner's credit histories on jointly-held accounts.

Account "Users"

If you open an individual account, you may authorize another person to use it. If you name your spouse as the authorized user, a creditor who reports the credit history to a credit bureau must report it in your spouse's name as well as in your's (if the account was opened after June 1, 1977). A creditor also may report the credit history in the name of any other authorized user.

Advantages/Disadvantages: User accounts often are opened for convenience. They benefit people who might not qualify for credit on their own, such as students or homemakers. While these people may use the account, you - not they - are contractually liable for paying the debt.

If You Divorce

If you're considering divorce or separation, pay special attention to the status of your credit accounts. If you maintain joint accounts during this time, it's important to make regular payments so your credit record won't suffer. As long as there's an outstanding balance on a joint account, you and your spouse are responsible for it.

If you divorce, you may want to close joint accounts or accounts in which your former spouse was an authorized user. Or ask the creditor to convert these accounts to individual accounts.

By law, a creditor cannot close a joint account because of a change in marital status, but can do so at the request of either spouse. A creditor, however, does not have to change joint accounts to individual accounts. The creditor can require you to reapply for credit on an individual basis and then, based on your new application, extend or deny you credit. In the case of a mortgage or home equity loan, a lender is likely to require refinancing to remove a spouse.

For more information regarding credit and bankruptcy please contact Patrick J. Conway at 513-241-6650.

Police Officer Has Probable Cause for Traffic Stop Even if Control Device is not Authorized by Statute

2006-08-28T12:26:00.000-07:00

The Ohio Supreme Court recently made an important decision in the case of Bowling Green vs. Godwin which affects many people, especially those suspected of driving under the influence or persons who may have contraband in their vehicle. The question before the Court was whether a police officer has probable cause to stop someone when the officer observes him/her violating a traffic control device (such as running a red light), even when that device was not correctly authorized by statute.

The Supreme Court ruled that found probable cause does exist, even when the police officer stops a driver for violating a traffic control device that is not authorized by law. In fact, even though the driver could not be convicted of the original traffic offense, this does not invalidate the stop. The Court’s decision was based upon the theory that a police officer cannot reasonably know that the sign or traffic control device is not authorized at the time he is stopping the driver.

For more information regarding DUI defense and other criminal matters, please contact Mark Godbey and Associates at 513-241-6650.

Know Your Rights Regarding Out of State Child Support Orders

2006-07-31T13:58:00.000-07:00

The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) was enacted in 1992 and amended in 1996 in an effort to ensure a child support obligation could not be evaded by simply moving across state lines. By 1998 every state including the District of Columbia had adopted UIFSA as the uniform method to establish, modify and enforce a child support order when the non-custodial parent resides out of State.

The primary goal of UIFSA is to establish one controlling order which will follow the non-custodial parent wherever he or she may reside. Prior to UIFSA, if Kentucky issued a child support order and the obligor moved to Ohio, it was common for both states to issue separate support orders. As a result, two or more support orders would be issued causing enormous confusion for both the custodial and non-custodial parent. Often enforcement of both orders would fall through administrative cracks or both states would attempt to enforce and grossly overcharge the non-custodial parent. Many of these old duel orders still exist; therefore every large out of state arrearage should be scrutinized.

UIFSA has come a long way to create a uniform method to enforce multi-state support orders, however it is important both the custodial and non-custodial parent to know their rights. UIFSA permits a party to bring a pure parentage action independent from any request for child support. Non-parentage may be raised as a defense when the issue has not been previously determined. Visitation issues cannot be raised in a UIFSA proceeding and are not a defense to nonpayment of support.

UISFA also includes many notice requirements and are accompanied by strict time frames. The registering party must provide certified copies of the order and any arrearage calculation. For example, if a Kentucky court issues a support order and requests Ohio to enforce it against the non-custodial parent, the local Ohio Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA) must notify the non-custodial parent by personal service or certified mail of the pending action. Once the non-custodial parent has received notice, he or she has 20 days to contest the validity of the order and any arrearage amount which the out of state order is attempting to collect. If the party fails to timely contest the registration, Ohio will adopt the order as their own, including the arrearage and exercise full enforcement powers under the law against the non-custodial parent.

If a timely contest is filed, the registering court must schedule a hearing and give notice of the hearing to the parties. The out of state resident is entitled to appear at the hearing telephonically. The contesting party may attack the registering order on: jurisdictional grounds, fraud, showing the order was vacated or suspended, or the applicable statute of limitations. If the non-custodial parent fails to establish a defense, the court must issue an order confirming the registration. It is vitally important for either party to contest the validity of the registration in a timely fashion if they believe the arrearage figure or order to be inaccurate.

UIFSA offers child support services to any custodial parent upon request. It also expressly authorizes private attorney involvement, including the award of attorney fees, if otherwise permitted by state law. Once registered, an out of state order may also be modified by either party upon request. Local laws will apply to the modification of an out of state order and the non-custodial parent is entitled to a full evidentiary hearing.

For more information regarding UIFSA or any other child support issues, please contact B. Bradley Berry, Esq. Mr. Berry was a Sr. Child Support Enforcement Attorney with the Montgomery County Job & Family Services and the Champaign County Child Support Enforcement Agency before joining Mark E. Godbey and Associates in February 2006.