By A.J. Wagner

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) requires employers to post, in a conspicuous place for employees to see, a notice of rights for workers. The notice tells workers the following:

Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), you have the right to:

• Organize a union to negotiate with your employer concerning your wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment.

• Form, join or assist a union.

• Bargain collectively through representatives of employees’ own choosing for a contract with your employer setting your wages, benefits, hours and other working conditions.

• Discuss your wages and benefits and other terms and conditions of employment or union organizing with your co-workers or a union.

• Take action with one or more co-workers to improve your working conditions by, among other means, raising work-related complaints directly with your employer or with a government agency and seeking help from a union.

• Strike and picket, depending on the purpose or means of the strike or the picketing.

• Choose not to do any of these activities, including joining or remaining a member of a union.

Under the NLRA, it is illegal for your employer to:

• Prohibit you from talking about or soliciting for a union during non-work time, such as before or after work or during break times; or from distributing union literature during non-work time, in non-work areas, such as parking lots or break rooms.

Under the NLRA, it is illegal for a union or for the union that represents you in bargaining with your employer to:

• Threaten or coerce you in order to gain your support for the union.

• Question you about your union support or activities in a manner that discourages you from engaging in that activity.

• Fire, demote or transfer you, or reduce your hours or change your shift, or otherwise take adverse action against you, or threaten to take any of these actions, because you join or support a union, or because you engage in concerted activity for mutual aid and protection or because you choose not to engage in any such activity.

• Threaten to close your workplace if workers choose a union to represent them.

• Promise or grant promotions, pay raises or other benefits to discourage or encourage union support.

• Prohibit you from wearing union hats, buttons, t-shirts and pins in the workplace except under special circumstances.

• Spy on or videotape peaceful union activities and gatherings or pretend to do so.

• Refuse to process a grievance because you have criticized union officials or because you are not a member of the union.

• Use or maintain discriminatory standards or procedures in making job referrals from a hiring hall.

• Cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against you because of your union-related activity.

• Take adverse action against you because you have not joined or do not support the union.

If you and your co-workers select a union to act as your collective bargaining representative, your employer and the union are required to bargain in good faith in a genuine effort to reach a written, binding agreement setting your terms and conditions of employment. The union is required to fairly represent you in bargaining and enforcing the agreement.

Illegal conduct will not be permitted. If you believe your rights or the rights of others have been violated, you should contact the NLRB promptly to protect your rights, generally within six months of the unlawful activity. You may inquire about possible violations without your employer or anyone else being informed of the inquiry. Charges may be filed by any person and need not be filed by the employee directly affected by the violation. The NLRB may order an employer to rehire a worker fired in violation of the law and to pay lost wages and benefits, and may order an employer or union to cease violating the law. Employees should seek assistance from the nearest regional NLRB office, which can be found on the Agency’s Web site: nlrb.gov.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has now ruled that to make an employer post this statement is a violation of their rights to free speech. The Court cited a quote from Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc.: “Some of [the] Court’s leading First Amendment precedents have established the principle that freedom of speech prohibits the government from telling people what they must say.”

The ramifications of this ruling, if upheld by the United States Supreme Court, are huge. This decision begs the question of other government requirements such as warnings on cigarette packages, food nutrition labels, allergy warnings, fair debt collection practices warnings, safety notices and so many more.

This decision may be taken up by the United States Supreme Court. Of course, they can’t be forced to say anything on the topic if they so chose.

Disclaimer: The content herein is for entertainment and information only. Do not use this as a legal consultation. Every situation has different nuances that can affect the outcome and laws change without notice. If you’re in a situation that calls for legal advice, get a lawyer. You represent yourself at your own risk. The author, the Dayton City Paper and its affiliates shall have no liability stemming from your use of the information contained herein. 

 By A.J. Wagner

At the opening of the May 2 meeting called by Dayton Metro Library for public input into the library’s building plans, we were informed that discussion of the Arcade or any other option would be limited. After all, we were told the Arcade advocates were working on faulty presumptions.

How ironic. The Arcade advocates are asking the board to consider a study to put the presumptions to rest. They are not asking for the Arcade to become the library at this time. The advocates understand the need for a thorough feasibility study to determine the costs and possibilities so that a good decision can be made. Four individuals were given two minutes each to ask for further study and we were cut off. The board has spoken. Their presumptions stand. Facts are not welcome.

The board provided a letter to the media that outlines their position. The letter is strong on presumptions, making it wrong on the law. Thus, it is the subject of this week’s “Law and Disorder.”

The letter asserts: “The Arcade is not one building but a multi-use complex. If we were to acquire the property, we would be taking responsibility for space we do not need and are not equipped to fill or to manage.” This presumes, incorrectly, that the library does not have the option of buying a part of the Arcade complex. They do.

The letter asserts: “We do not have unrestricted ownership of the property where the Main Library is situated … [W]e would not reap any proceeds if we left that property and moved elsewhere.” The truth: Gunther Berg, owner of the Arcade, has offered to buy the old library as a part of any deal. The actual costs of these transactions are presumed to be high, but for now are unknown. A feasibility study would nail this down.

The letter asserts: “We have been steadily moving away from leasing space for our facilities because of the loss of control that entails. Maintaining control of the Main Library is non-negotiable.  More important, even if we were prepared to make that compromise, no entity has stepped forward to take on the complicated, risky and financially draining work of restoring the Arcade.” The truth: The library currently sits on land leased in perpetuity from the City of Dayton and Berg brought a renowned historic architect to Dayton a few weeks ago to look at, and potentially, manage the project. Further, the library has yet to hire an architect to take on the complicated, risky and financially draining work of restoring the current library.

The letter asserts: “For structural reasons and because the corridors are very much part of the historic fabric of the buildings, tearing down walls or moving them may not in all cases be possible. At best, doing so likely would be cost prohibitive.” The presumptions are italicized. A study can resolve the real possibilities.

The letter asserts: “Maintenance and energy costs would be significant at the Arcade.” Without a study, we do not know how significant. Modern construction techniques will make the Arcade energy efficient. How efficient? Do the study.

The letter asserts: “In previous redevelopment attempts of the Arcade, unanticipated costs have been significant.” The Board proposes rehabbing the existing library with the same potential risks. What are the risks? Do the study.

The letter asserts: “Our legal counsel is unequivocal that we cannot take the money generated from the sale of general obligation bonds issued for a public purpose and then loan it to a private developer.” By purchasing the property, this issue would be overcome. No loans need to be made to the developer from the funds. A study could show how to do this within the law.

The letter says: “It’s also important to understand that, as a public entity, Dayton Metro Library is not eligible to receive historic tax credits.” A study of the use of tax credits would show how the library could obtain credits and sell them to other entities saving millions in construction costs. How much? Do the study.

The letter asserts: “As you can see, the case for remaining at our current site is overwhelming … The libraries we are creating across Montgomery County must serve citizens for decades to come, and we have to maximize the dollars taxpayers have entrusted to us. Please be assured that we have done our due diligence regarding this incredibly important decision.” Without a study, there is no due diligence.

Because of space limits, I have not addressed all elements of the letter. But in the end, we are not asking for the library to be moved, we are asking for a study of all of these elements to determine the feasibility of moving the library. The study will cost nothing. Please do it.

Disclaimer: The content herein is for entertainment and information only. Do not use this as a legal consultation. Every situation has different nuances that can affect the outcome and laws change without notice. If you’re in a situation that calls for legal advice, get a lawyer. You represent yourself at your own risk. The author, the Dayton City Paper and its affiliates shall have no liability stemming from your use of the information contained herein. 

 By A.J. Wagner

It was an interesting day for democracy in Dayton and across the country last Wednesday, April 17. A day of decisions and non-decisions that tell a tale of democratic systems and how they work or not.

In the United States Senate, by a vote of 54-45, a bill that would require background checks for gun purchases at gun shows and on the Internet was defeated. As in 54 senators wanted more background checks and 46 did not. The majority lost. So did a majority of Americans who showed in in the latest Washington Post/ ABC News poll an 86-17 percent preference for background checks at gun shows.

Of course, Senate rules are the culprit here, where the Senate has sabotaged democracy by giving any one senator the ability to call for a filibuster, thus disqualifying the majority unless it reaches 60 votes or more. Although the National Rifle Association (NRA) is credited with the defeat, it was not the NRA, but the Senate itself which made the rule that allows a majority to be defeated by a minority.

In Dayton, this publication made a noble run at the Dayton Metro Library Board of Trustees, trying to convince them that the Arcade should be considered as a possible location for the new downtown library. After a good speech by our publisher, Paul Noah, providing a road map that would allow the board a chance to test the viability of the idea with hard facts, crickets could be heard. No motion was made to look at the Arcade or other potential sites which were all ignored in favor of presumptions and faulty representations about building possibilities, tax credits and their limitations.

The board is made up of some prominent and good people who sincerely believe they have made the best decision possible. None were elected. None have the need to be responsive to voters now who gave them $187 million to improve our library system with very few voters knowing that the board had never considered, in a serious way, the Arcade or other potential structures. They were appointed and their volunteer positions are safe. They have your money now, you have no other voice. Walk away. Nothing to see here.

The city manager of the City of Dayton, on that same day, made this announcement:

“I do not intend to move forward with bringing the Persistent Surveillance Systems contract before the City Commission for consideration. In our meetings around the community, we heard viewpoints and opinions from all sides. While we believe there are real potential benefits to the strategic application of this technology, we heard enough confusion over how it would be applied to concern us. The City of Dayton has placed a priority on using technology to enhance operations and control costs across our organization. I commend Police Chief Richard Biehl and Assistant City Manager Shelley Dickstein for their efforts in bringing this technology application forward because of their concern for community safety and job creation. Going forward, we will continue to pursue technology investments whenever practical. One thing is clear: technology advancements will continue to offer opportunities in the years ahead in terms of services, safety and job creation. We will be poised to take advantage of those opportunities.”

Although I would vote against the measure myself, if I had a vote, there will be no vote. The unelected city manager said so. Of course, if there were a vote, the measure would likely not get the three votes needed for passage. Two of the commissioners and the mayor are on the ballot for May 7 and may not wish to take a stand on this issue that has angered many citizens. So, perhaps, the majority ruled here. We won’t know until after the election when it can safely be returned to the commission agenda. Reportedly, Commissioner Williams wants it considered at another time, as does Commissioner Joseph. Just not now. Too much democracy.

The same is true for the elimination of Priority Boards. It was scheduled to be considered by early spring, but the city administration hasn’t brought the issue forward after receiving much backlash. It would be good if the issue died, but it isn’t dead. It is also awaiting May 7 or Nov. 6. Democracy might get in the way if we had a vote now and those on the ballot were forced to vote the will of the people. Better to wait until after the election so that the Priority Boards can be dismissed with minimal fuss and far from the next election so that it can be forgotten.

We must respect our laws by whatever process we get them. But if we think that all laws are a product of true democracy, we are fooling ourselves.

A.J. Wagner is an attorney with the law firm of Flanagan, Lieberman, Hoffman and Swaim at 15 W. Fourth Street in Dayton. A.J. and his firm would be glad to help you with all of your legal needs. You can reach A.J. at (937) 223-5200 or at AJWagner@DaytonCityPaper.com.

 By A.J. Wagner

It is time to pull the bike off the hooks in the garage, inflate the tires, check the chains, test the gears and the spokes and get out on the road. Last year, while I was riding leisurely down the street, a driver passed me and screamed, “Get on the sidewalk!” It is time for bikers and drivers alike to review the rules of biking. Last spring, I went over the requirements of the State of Ohio. This year, I will get specific to Dayton but, remember, each village or city may have its own rules for bicycling.

Dayton’s rules are found under Title VII, Chapter 74 of the city’s Code of Ordinances. Dayton’s bicycle rules apply to every person riding a bicycle on the highways, bikeways, park roads or other public property within the city where bicycles are permitted.

If it’s dark, you must have a working light on the bike that shall emit a white light visible from a distance of at least 500 feet to the front and a red reflector on the rear that shall be visible 600 feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful lower beams of head lamps on a motor vehicle and a red light visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear. You must also have working brakes.

A bell, audible for 100 feet, is a must. Sirens or whistles are prohibited.

Ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, except where compliance with vehicular law requires another position.

Make sure you do not ride on a roadway more than two abreast in a single lane except on bikeways or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.

Do not cling or attach one’s self or bicycle to any other vehicle.

Always ride on a bicycle while sitting astride the seat, facing forward with one leg on each side of the bicycle.

Thou shalt not tow or draw any coaster, sled, person on roller skates or skateboards, toy vehicle or similar device or objects. This division shall not prohibit something designed for such attachment.

Keep at least one hand on the handlebars.

Each rider must have his or her own, firmly attached, seat.

Do not ride on sidewalks unless it is part of a properly designated bike path.

These rules don’t apply to a child under 11 with a 20-inch or smaller wheeled bike.

When crossing a street, pedestrian rules apply though you may ride the bike across.

Follow traffic rules at an intersection and ring the bell to let pedestrians know you are approaching from behind.

No person shall park a bicycle on a sidewalk so as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of pedestrians or other traffic. A bicycle may be parked on the roadway at any angle to the curb or edge of the roadway at any location where parking is allowed. A bicycle may be parked on a roadway abreast of another bicycle near the side of a roadway where parking is allowed except in any metered parking zone. A person shall not park a bicycle on a roadway in such a manner as to obstruct the movement of a legally parked motor vehicle. In all other respects, bicycles parked anywhere on a highway shall conform to the provisions of this title regulating parking of vehicles.

No person shall operate a bicycle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing. Also, obey the speed limit.

No person under the age of 13 shall operate a bicycle or ride as a passenger on a bicycle equipped with a passenger seat on bikeways, streets, highways or other public property, unless such person is wearing a protective bicycle helmet on his or her head, with the chin strap fastened under the chin. Such bicycle helmet shall be fitted to the size of the operator and shall meet or exceed the standards set by the American National Standards Institute or Snell Memorial Foundation for helmets manufactured prior to March 1999 and shall meet or exceed the standards set by the Consumer Product Safety Institute after said date. Whoever violates this section shall be fined not more than $25; provided, however, that nothing herein prevents a police officer from only issuing a warning for a first offense.

There are more rules, but these are the main ones. Remember that in other cities and villages the rules may differ. So, check the home rules if you plan on riding.

Dayton has increased the numbers of bike lanes, but if you are an avid rider you will still find yourself riding in the streets at some point. Don’t weave in and out of parked cars, keep your eyes on the road and have fun.

By A. J. Wagner

It is written plainly in the City of Dayton Charter Article II Section 7 (F):

“Any person whose name has been submitted for candidacy by any such petition shall file his acceptance of such candidacy with the election authorities not later than 55 days before the day of the primary election or special election, and in the absence of such acceptance the name of the candidate shall not appear on the ballot or voting machines.”

Every petition circulated by candidates for office in the city of Dayton contains space for the names of a five person nominating committee, forty signature spaces for electors, a notary clause for the circulator and a signature line for the candidate to comply with the above provision of the Charter.

William Pace submitted 39 petitions with 951 signatures from electors to the Montgomery County Board of Elections. Of those, 653 signatures were determined by the board to be valid, exceeding the required 500 signatures, thus qualifying Pace for the ballot. Pace submitted his petitions in a timely fashion 60 days prior to the election. Pace signed several of the petitions as circulator. Pace failed, however, to sign any of the petitions accepting the candidacy.

There is no controversy in these facts alone. Pace’s failure to sign the petitions seems to disqualify him. But the petitions were filed 60 days prior to the election on March 8 and Pace had until 55 days before the election to sign the acceptance of candidacy. What happened over those five days is what has now resulted in a legal action before Ohio’s Second District Court of Appeals where Attorney C. Ralph Wilcoxson has asked for a “mandamus” – a court order requiring the Board of Elections to certify Pace as a candidate.

Confusion of facts and law are the stuff of lawsuits. On the factual side, Pace argued that a Board of Elections employee contacted him prior to the 55 day deadline to tell him his petitions had sufficient signature. Another contacted him a day later to ask him how he wanted his name to appear on the ballot. No mention was made of his failure to sign the acceptance.

On that fateful 55th day prior to the election, March 13, the Board of Elections met to officially certify qualifying petitions. Instead of their usual morning meeting, they moved the meeting to 4 p.m., after their offices were officially closed. Only then was it revealed Pace had failed to sign the acceptance.

Pace was made aware of this defect when a reporter called him for comment. He immediately went to the Board of Elections office, which was closed. He then faxed in an acceptance, which the board acknowledged was received around 7:30 p.m. on the evening of March 13.

The board requested an opinion from the city’s law department. John Danish, Dayton’s law director, reported back, “Our charter requires a candidate to file an acceptance of the candidacy, and the word ‘filing,’ I believe under court cases, means physical delivery to a government office and that a facsimile does not qualify.” The board has accepted that opinion as law.

As to why the board failed to notify Pace of the deficiency in earlier calls, the board cited a 2011 directive from the Secretary of State’s office banning them from pre-checking petitions for petitioners who seek review of their petitions’ validity and sufficiency. The board also noted that the candidate is solely responsible for ensuring that his or her own petition satisfies the requirements of law.

Wicoxson argues to the Court of Appeals that the law favors Pace. He opens with this statement: “The right of political parties or candidates to a place on the ballot bears directly on the right of citizens to vote. If parties or candidates are kept off the ballot, their adherents are compelled to vote for representatives other than those of their choice. The denial of a place on the ballot thus constitutes a deprivation of the franchise.”

In papers filed with the court, Wilcoxson noted that voting is a “fundamental political right, because it is preservative of all rights and that our laws bend toward expansion and protection of the right to vote.” Citing other courts, Wilcoxson argued that, “Absolute compliance with every technicality should not be required in order to constitute substantial compliance, unless such complete and absolute conformance to each technical requirement of the printed form serves a public interest and a public purpose.”

As of the writing of this article, I cannot guess what the court’s decision will look like, but I hope all errors are decided in favor of the voters and that they get William Pace as a choice for the May 7 primary ballot.

By A.J. Wagner

It was 50 years ago last week when the Supreme Court of the United States decided the landmark case of Gideon v. Wainwright. This was the case that decided that criminal defendants have a right to legal counsel.

So, I contacted Montgomery County’s Public Defender, Rudy Wehner, to see what he might have to say about this solemn occasion. I even offered to let him write this article. Turns out he was too busy. Attorneys in his office are handling far too many cases and he has been pitching in at the courthouse, despite his more-than-full-time administrative responsibilities.

This stretched-thin problem in the public defender’s office has placed the principal of Gideon in jeopardy. With more cases than any ordinary person can handle, the assistant public defenders constantly worry their representation may fall short of what is needed for their clients.

Yet, when someone calls me and to ask me to represent them, I ask for a fee. When they tell me they cannot afford to pay a fee, I tell them they will qualify for representation by a public defender. Invariably, I am told that the person doesn’t want a public defender, he or she wants a “real” lawyer. But not only are public defenders real lawyers, they are some of the best criminal lawyers in town. Criminal law is what they do every working day. They are familiar with the law and the courts they practice in. You may not see them as much as you’d like, but they do a very good job.

I once asked a physician friend of mine about what to look for in choosing a surgeon. She responded that I should seek the doctor who has done the most surgeries. That doctor will have the most experience and will likely have seen everything that can go wrong during surgery which has given them the experience to deal with those problems.

The same is true with a public defender. The daily experience of handling hundreds of cases every year makes them experts on the law.

Getting back to Gideon v. Wainwright, here’s what the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution says:

Amendment VI

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”

That language was approved with the Bill of Rights in 1789, which makes one wonder how it is that it wasn’t until 1963 before the Supreme Court decided to enforce this provision. Further, it makes one wonder when the court will further assure proper representation in all cases by making sure that the case load of appointed lawyers and public defenders is the appropriate size so that lawyers have sufficient time to meet with and prepare representation for their clients.

Gideon was charged in a Florida state court with breaking and entering into a poolroom with intent to commit a misdemeanor. This is a felony under Florida law. Appearing in court without funds and without a lawyer, petitioner asked the court to appoint counsel for him. The court responded:

“Mr. Gideon, I am sorry, but I cannot appoint counsel to represent you in this case. Under the laws of the State of Florida, the only time the court can appoint counsel to represent a defendant is when that person is charged with a capital offense.”

In the opinion written by Justice Black, the Gideon decision noted:

“The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel, he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he has a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence.”

Thus, we celebrate a golden anniversary with hope that it will continue to be honored.

A.J. Wagner is an attorney with the law firm of Flanagan, Lieberman, Hoffman and Swaim at 15 W. Fourth Street in Dayton. A.J. and his firm would be glad to help you with all of your legal needs. You can reach A.J. at (937) 223-5200 or at AJWagner@DaytonCityPaper.com.

 By A.J. Wagner

The last few years have been tough on realtors. After the recession hit in 2008, houses declined significantly in value. The foreclosure crisis flooded the market with low-priced abandoned homes. Now it’s spring, a time when many think about buying a home. What follows are a few things to consider when looking into making that big investment.

First up are the possibilities. Traditionally, one would contract with a realtor to assist in finding a suitable property. I believe that is still the best way – realtors are licensed professionals who understand the market and know the ins, outs and possible pitfalls of real estate issues. They get a percentage commission as payment for their service, which is worth the price for the protections and advice a realtor can offer. Non-traditionally, however, one may venture into sheriff auctions, short sales or working directly with a seller.

Sheriff sales come about from properties that are foreclosed on for failure to pay a mortgage or other lien on the property. The owner of the debt sues the property owner in court and after proving the debt, the court grants permission to sell the property through the sheriff. The sheriff conducts these sales on a periodic basis depending on where you live. Check with your local sheriff or look for ads in your local paper to find the time and place for the sale which is conducted as an auction.

The good part of a sheriff’s sale is that there are often bargains. The bad part is that there can still be title and tax issues that aren’t resolved by the lawsuit. Make sure before you buy a property at a sheriff’s sale that you have actually looked at the property and have had an attorney review the court action and the title to be certain of what you’re getting into.

With the decline in property values, there are many homes that now have mortgages on them that exceed the value of the property. Some banks will allow a property owner to sell their property at the market value and forgive the loan balance. This could be a good deal for a purchaser, since both the property owner and the bank are motivated to sell. This is called a short sale. When you enter into a short sale, be sure the lender is fully on board – in writing – with the sale and the price. Make certain that you also know what liens might be on the property other than the mortgage.

Many banks now have an inventory of foreclosed properties available for sale. Your best bet if you purchase one of these properties is to obtain title insurance to be sure that any issues of lingering liens or improper court procedures don’t get in the way of obtaining a clear title to the property. Remember that title insurance purchased on behalf of the bank or lender is not the same as title insurance purchased by you as a buyer. If there are later title issues, you cannot make a claim against the bank’s policy – only your insurance policy will protect you.

In the purchase of any property, you should look for as many assurances as you can get that a title is clear and that the property is in sound condition. A realtor can be very helpful here, as can an attorney. Have your contracts reviewed by an attorney to make sure everything is covered. Require inspections. Make certain of the property’s zoning and any deed restrictions which may limit your use of the property. Ask for a Residential Property Disclosure Form and a lead paint disclosure.

Make sure you know what personal items go with the property, such as ovens, refrigerators, carpets, washers and dryers. Have a provision in the contract that assures all utilities have been paid up to the closing or move out date. Be clear about who pays the assessments or taxes. As noted above, consider buying title insurance. Make sure all the terms of payment are spelled out and you get a proper deed according to your needs. Know when you get possession and who is responsible for any damage to the property while the sale is pending.

Talk to a bank ahead of time to understand the different kinds of financing you can get. It is very helpful to be pre-qualified for a loan, but don’t just talk to one bank. Do some shopping. Interest rates and closing costs can vary widely. Paying a half percent more in interest can add thousands of dollars over the thirty-year life of many mortgages. Know if the mortgage can be paid off without penalty.

After you move in to your new property, invite the neighbors over for a housewarming. New friendships will add significantly to the true value of your new investment.

Disclaimer: The content herein is for entertainment and information only. Do not use this as a legal consultation. Every situation has different nuances that can affect the outcome and laws change without notice. If you’re in a situation that calls for legal advice, get a lawyer. You represent yourself at your own risk. The author, the Dayton City Paper and its affiliates shall have no liability stemming from your use of the information contained herein.