Experience
Representation of Delhi Township
Dinsmore represents Delhi Township, Ohio, and handled the redevelopment of a vacated shopping center into a 15 acre mixed-use development known as Delhi Towne Square, which includes Delhi Athletic Club, a cultural arts center and event center, preschool rooms for Oak Hills School District, as well as a 180-unit apartment complex. We successfully completed a subdivision of the site, negotiated a 100-year ground lease with the multi-family apartment developer, as well as a lease with Oak Hills School District for classroom space on the site. We also handled the public financing aspects of this project.
Representation of the Village of Silverton
We represent the Village of Silverton and handled an innovative statutory land swap transaction with the Cincinnati City School District, whereby the school district obtained a new site for redevelopment of a Montessori school and the Village obtained a 10 acre parcel of land. We further represented Silverton in the assemblage of certain adjacent parcels, thereby creating an attractive site for redevelopment. Subsequently, we continued our representation of the Village in negotiating the essential contract and easement agreements allowing for the development of approximately 200 luxury apartments. We handled all aspects of the transaction, including site development agreements and public financing of the project. This project serves as a gateway project for the Village of Silverton, Ohio. Additionally, we represented the Village in its acquisition of its new city hall and redevelopment of the former city hall into a brew pub.
Charging Order Against Three LLCs Reversed
After a judgment had already been entered, the defendant hired Dinsmore to represent him in connection with the plaintiffs’ collection efforts. The plaintiffs claimed our client was a member of three limited liability companies, and they asked the trial court to charge his alleged membership interests. We opposed the plaintiffs’ motion for charging order because our client was not an owner of any of the LLCs, as evidenced by their operating agreements. Nevertheless, the trial court granted the plaintiffs’ request. The First District Court of Appeals reversed, finding the trial court “lacked competent evidence of [our client’s] membership” in the companies. The First District held: “when determining if an individual is a member of a limited liability company for the purpose of R.C. 1705.19, the trial court must consider records maintained by the company for the purpose of its corporate governance that name those owners entitled to receive distributions and share in the profits and losses of the company.” Because “the only records of the limited liability companies before the trial court established” that our client was not a member of the LLCs, the trial court erred in granting the plaintiffs’ motion for charging order.
Stanfield v. On Target Consulting, 1st Dist. Ham. App. No. C-160890, 2017-Ohio-8830.
Successful Representation of Municipality in Right to Take Hearing
Our client, a municipality, filed an action to appropriate private property for a road improvement project. The private owner challenged our client’s right to take its property and the necessity of the appropriation. A Hamilton County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas judge heard testimony and evidence over six days. The court concluded the private owner’s property was needed for our client’s road project and the project was necessary to improve safety and traffic control and efficiency at the intersection. Finally, the evidence established that the municipality operated in good faith and fully complied with R.C. 163.04 and R.C. 163.59. Thus, the court determined our client had the right, and had established the required necessity, to appropriate the property for the road improvement project. We later tried the remaining parts of this eminent domain case to a jury for approximately two weeks.