Ohio Supreme Court sets schedule in lawsuit from Cincinnati Right to Life against Ohio Ballot Board

Ohio Supreme Court sets schedule in lawsuit from Cincinnati Right to Life against Ohio Ballot Board

DeBlase and Giroux are in search of to receive the issuance of a writ of mandamus, which is a judicial writ issued as a command, to have the Ohio Supreme Court compel the Ohio Ballot Board to vacate their determination that only just one modification was proposed.

In addition, the relators are looking for to have the court make the Ohio Ballot Board issue a dedication that the petition for the proposed amendment consists of a lot more than one proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution and divide the foregoing initiative petition into unique petitions.

The respondents in this lawsuit include members of the Committee to Depict Petitioners, including Nancy Kramer, Aziza Wahby, David Hackney, Jennifer McNally, and Ebony Speakes-Corridor. Those people individuals have been selected as a committee to signify the petitioners for this proposed modification that is in the method of amassing signatures to be approved for the ballot.

The counsel for that committee not long ago filed a response to the lawsuit, asking the court docket to dismiss it. The reaction claims the relators Margaret DeBlase and John Giroux “lack standing to convey their Criticism,” “fail to condition a assert upon which can be granted,” and “fail to fulfill the requirements for mandamus relief.”

Tuesday’s motion from the Ohio Supreme Court granted an unopposed motion from the respondents for an expedited proof and briefing agenda. Merit briefs and proof are to be submitted by March 31 and by April 4 for the relators and respondents, respectively. The relators can then file a reply transient by April 7.

ExploreProposed modification guaranteeing abortion obtain clears most current hurdle

“The extremists powering this lawsuit are determined to avert Ohioans from going to the polls and voting on the Reproductive Flexibility modification,” said Freda Levenson, lawful director of the ACLU of Ohio. ”With this new lawsuit, they’re striving to enlist anti-abortion justices on the Ohio Supreme Court docket to impede the amendment.”

If the Ohio Ballot Board could have break up up the proposed modification into multiple ones, they would have, Levenson mentioned. As a substitute, the board voted unanimously to approve it was one amendment.

“We have to hope and believe that the Ohio Supreme Courtroom justices, like the ballot board, will carry out their responsibility, uphold the legislation, and dismiss this baseless situation,” Levenson explained.

The lawsuit was named “unprecedented and meritless” by a spokesperson for Ohio Doctors for Reproductive Rights, who reported those who introduced about the lawsuit “are making an attempt to circumvent the law and the Structure in a desperate try to protect against the individuals of Ohio from voting on the Reproductive Freedom amendment.” They system not to be deterred by the lawsuit or what they identified as the “the multi-million-dollar disinformation marketing campaign remaining waged by our opponents.”

ExploreAnti-abortion groups launch $5M Ohio advert campaign

Ohio Medical professionals for Reproductive Legal rights and its network, Protect Alternative Ohio, lately started out collecting signatures for the proposed amendment to get it placed on the November ballot.

“The enthusiasm and aid we’ve seen has been definitely inspiring,” said Dr. Marcela Azevedo of Ohio Doctors for Reproductive Rights. “Our volunteers are keen and psyched to gather signatures.” Close to 2,000 volunteers have been qualified by Safeguard Decision Ohio on how to circulate petitions.

To qualify for the ballot, petitions have to have legitimate signatures of 413,488 Ohio registered voters. Organizers approach to acquire a minimum amount of 700,000 signatures to make sure they meet that need. Petitions have to be submitted to the Secretary of State by July 5. Ohio is 1 of two states in the nation that allows citizens to area an difficulty on the ballot in odd-numbered years.

In response to these petitions, anti-abortion teams have launched a $5 million advertisement marketing campaign named Shield Girls Ohio to oppose the proposed amendment. Secure Women Ohio just lately announced coalition associates and campaign hires, which includes a variety of Right to Daily life groups and spiritual teams.

“Today’s coalition rollout reveals what we have acknowledged all together: Ohioans refuse to sit back and watch as the ACLU and Prepared Parenthood carry their war on parental legal rights to our doorstep,” reported Molly Smith, board member of Guard Gals Ohio. “This severe and harmful anti-mum or dad modification eliminates existing health and fitness protections for gals and young children and erases dad and mom from the conversation. We won’t let that come about.”

Cincinnati takes a swing at gun reform with a lawsuit and new ordinances

Cincinnati takes a swing at gun reform with a lawsuit and new ordinances

In an hard work to control gun violence, Cincinnati has two proposed ordinances for Metropolis Council to take into account and has submitted a lawsuit versus the condition.

The first ordinance addresses the secure storage of firearms to keep them away from little ones. The 2nd ordinance would bar all those convicted of domestic violence or topic to a defense buy from possessing firearms.

The ordinances are extensions or additions to present guidelines. They give law enforcement and prosecutors a several extra choices when it will come to addressing gun violence in scenarios that could not rise to the stage of a felony. As town ordinances, both of those of the new fees would be misdemeanors punishable by up to one yr in prison.

Even so, cities in Ohio have mainly been unsuccessful in passing gun legislation because of to a 2006 legislation that has survived a problem in the Ohio Supreme Courtroom. Cincinnati’s attorneys want to transform that.

Normally identified as the “preemption legislation,” it bars political subdivisions (like metropolitan areas and counties) from regulating firearms, their factors, ammunition, and knives. Ohio’s gun foyer has effectively sued Cincinnati and other metropolitan areas in the earlier to block gun limitations. In 2018, Cincinnati’s ban on bump stocks was stopped in this way.

“Keeping residents safe is the best priority of our City govt,” Mayor Aftab Pureval explained. “Gun security steps preserve life, and we will continue to do anything in our electricity to place an conclusion to gun violence in Cincinnati.”

Last week, the city filed a lawsuit seeking that the “preemption regulation” be declared unconstitutional.

Harmless storage

The risk-free storage legislation falls under the present law of kid endangering. Although a guardian who let a kid access a gun could now be charged beneath this law, the new ordinance would spell out the offense, in accordance to the metropolis solicitor’s business office.

It states that firearms really should not be stored exactly where “a youngster is in a position to gain entry to the firearm,” and that failing to do so results in a significant hazard to the overall health and protection of a youngster.

The proposed ordinance cites a 2022 circumstance in which a 6-12 months-outdated shot and killed his 3-calendar year-old brother and a 2020 case in which an 8-12 months-old was shot and killed when he and a further youngster ended up dealing with a gun. In the two conditions, the youngsters uncovered loaded guns in their residences, the ordinance states. In equally conditions, adults were billed with felonies more critical than the proposed laws.

The proposed ordinance is written to allow for expenses to be submitted even if no one particular is damage in an incident, the solicitor’s place of work mentioned.

“This is not about going and knocking on somebody’s doorway to get a firearm absent from them,” Cincinnati Police Main Teresa Theetge explained.

She claimed officers will be imposing the regulations when situations existing them selves. She mentioned gun locks are out there at all Cincinnati police stations and her department continues to function to distribute individuals for cost-free.

Columbus passed similar legislation in December. On the other hand, its regulation falls underneath negligent murder and negligent assault.

Lawyer Common Dave Yost sought to block the Columbus regulation, but a Fairfield County choose allowed the restriction to stand in a ruling previous month. Yost argued the law will criminalize people today for failing to obtain enough hiding spots for firearms so not even their teenage young children could come across them, and that they destroy a person’s skill to use a firearm for self-defense. Yost’s workplace stated he plans to appeal the judge’s conclusion.

Domestic violence

The new domestic violence ordinance would mirror an current federal law, but permit for local prosecution under local legislation in scenarios the federal government may well not prosecute, in accordance to the solicitor’s business office.

The proposed ordinance would be an addition to the “possessing weapons under incapacity” law. This is the exact same type of regulation that bars a convicted felon from owning or possessing a gun.

The new regulation would bar any individual who has been convicted of a misdemeanor offense of domestic violence from possessing a weapon as effectively as bar any one who is issue to a momentary security or restraining get involving an intimate husband or wife or kid of an intimate companion. The get need to discover that the man or woman represents a “credible danger.”

Main Theetge spoke in guidance the proposed ordinances Thursday.

“As a result of this new laws, we are performing with each other to avoid functions of gun violence and unintended shootings that trigger our communities unimaginable grief and ache,” Theetge claimed.

Theetge reported in 2022, 20 folks had been killed in relationship with domestic violence. That accounts for about a quarter of all homicides in the town.

Metropolis Solicitor Emily Woerner explained these earlier convicted of domestic violence are already barred from owning firearms under federal legislation. She reported the new ordinance makes it possible for for area enforcement.

The lawsuit

The 43-page lawsuit filed Friday in Hamilton County Typical Pleas Courtroom troubles a 2006 law passed by the Ohio legislature and its 2018 growth.

It forbids Ohio municipalities from imposing any restriction on a person’s capacity to have, have, order, provide, transfer, transportation, shop or maintain any firearm, section of a firearm, its elements and its ammunition.

In the earlier, this has prevented cities from passing their possess restrictions on the dimensions of journals or their very own bans on assault weapons.

The lawsuit argues the legislation is “an unconstitutional and illegal exertion by the Normal Assembly to silence area elected officials and the municipalities they symbolize.”

The fit states the “house rule” power of Ohio towns, a provision of the Ohio Constitution allowing towns to move guidelines, should defend cities from the legislation.

Cincinnati’s attorneys claimed just one of the causes the preemption law was upheld by the court docket was that the condition had legal guidelines in area regulating concealed carry. The lawsuit states now that guns can be carried without a allow, that argument is obsolete.

“With one hand the Condition dismantles present gun regulations with the other, it threatens exorbitant legal responsibility for Ohio metropolitan areas attempting to fill the void,” the fit states. “The State’s abandonment of frequent-perception gun regulation has bloody penalties.”

The lawsuit states local ordinances could help stop mass shootings, accidental shootings of kids and personal husband or wife gun violence.

“(The preemption law) purports to ‘provide uniform rules all over the state,’ but what the statute certainly accomplishes is a uniform absence of gun regulation,” the match states.

The town is inquiring for both preliminary and long lasting injunction in opposition to the law.

The gun foyer

The Buckeye Firearms Affiliation launched a statement Thursday in reaction to the announcement.

“The town of Cincinnati has determined to once more waste its citizens’ tax dollars and re-litigate settled legislation,” the assertion stated.

Govt Director Dean Rieck mentioned Cincinnati paid out the Buckeye Firearms Affiliation over $230,000 in legal service fees after the firm sued more than Cincinnati’s proposed bump inventory ban. He said the rules will not be adopted by criminals and will entrap or else law-abiding citizens.

“We will not make it possible for rogue towns to eviscerate the development we have built around the final two many years just so they can grandstand and faux that they’re preventing criminal offense, when all they are executing is throwing away taxpayer bucks on political theater,” Rieck said.

What’s upcoming

The two ordinances are expected to be introduced at the General public Safety and Governance Committee on Tuesday. The comprehensive council could vote on the ordinances as soon as Feb. 15.

Mayor Pureval, Vice Mayor Jan-Michele Kearney and councilmembers Scotty Johnson, Meeka Owens and Liz Keating co-sponsored the legislation.

City Manager Sheryl Lengthy also supports the new ordinances.

“As somebody who has dropped a shut household member to gun violence, I’m proud to support this legislation,” Long stated. “These legal guidelines will help you save life. Gun violence affects all Cincinnatians, and we can and should training our regional authority to answer to this disaster.”

Choose Jennifer Department has been assigned Cincinnati’s lawsuit towards the point out. Hearings in the scenario have not still been scheduled.

This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: Cincinnati can take swing at gun reform with new ordinances, lawsuit

Greater Cincinnati residents sued for old car debt; Discrepancies found in lawsuits

Greater Cincinnati residents sued for old car debt; Discrepancies found in lawsuits

A growing number of greater Cincinnati residents are finding out they have car troubles in the courts. Local residents are being sued for cars many of them no longer own. The debtors are being told they owe thousands of dollars, and some are even having their wages garnished. The Hamilton County Clerk of Courts first brought this issue to WLWT’s attention. Investigative reporter Jatara McGee spent weeks working to get answers. The problems stem from the last 10 years or so, and the fallout is far from over. Sade Herron, a Cincinnati mom of three, explained how her car troubles began around March 2015. She was pregnant at the time and needed a car to get to work. She went to a used car dealership and took out a $7,976 loan from the dealership to purchase a used 2004 Pontiac Grand Am.”It was one thing after another with that car. Every other day it was something,” she said. Within a matter of weeks, Herron said the car was overheating and even broke down on the interstate. “It was very traumatic for me,” Herron said.According to Herron, she complained to the dealer until it took the car back. “My understanding with this company is that this is over,” Herron said.She learned seven years later it was not. This spring, Herron’s boss notified her of a wage garnishment notification for $10,100.47 from “ADLP Investments.”ADLP Investments acquired Herron’s car contract with Alford Motors and was suing her to pay off the debt. Herron said she was never notified of the lawsuit so she did not appear in court. Since she did not appear, the judge approved a garnishment for the value of the contract plus interest and court costs. “Well over the amount the car was worth,” Herron explained.Attorneys at the Legal Aid Society of Greater Cincinnati pointed out several problems with ADLP’s lawsuit against Herron and got the lawsuit dismissed.Herron’s story is not isolated.Legal Aid found hundreds of lawsuits filed between 2019 and 2022, stemming from old vehicle debt for cars allegedly purchased from one Cincinnati dealership, Alford Motors. It is a “buy here, pay here” dealership that advertises “Job + Down Payment = Car.”A few years ago, the dealership sold some of its old accounts to two companies, ADLP Investments and DBC Holdings, who went on to sue many of the debtors to collect outstanding balances. Rob Wall is the director of the Hamilton County Municipal Help Center, a partnership between the University of Cincinnati College of Law and the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts. “We see ourselves as an urgent care or emergency room of the civil justice system,” Wall said.This summer, the waiting room was full of people complaining about the same issue. “A number of these people, they had already lost the case without even knowing that they had been sued,” Wall said. “When you start to see people with the same story over and over again, that’s when it really solidifies in your mind. There may be a real issue here.”The help center started referring people to Legal Aid Senior Attorney Matthew Fitzsimmons. “I’ve seen a lot of smoke, if you will,” Fitzsimmons said. He said Legal Aid has already helped more than 25 people sued by ADLP Investments, LLC and DBC Holdings, for debt purchased from Alford Motors. “When we point out these problems to the other, the plaintiff’s attorney, they’ve agreed to walk away from it,” Fitzsimmons said.”On all 25?” McGee asked.”On all 25,” Fitzsimmons answered.”For everyone that we’ve helped, dozens more have certainly been sued, been garnished, may not know that they truly don’t owe this money,” Fitzsimmons said. Legal Aid filed a 160-page complaint with the Ohio Attorney General’s office in May. It analyzed 116 lawsuits brought by ADLP Investments or DBC Holdings for car contracts bought from Alford Motors. The complaint found many of the lawsuits had similar recurring, critical errors like where a debtor’s balance was not credited after the car was repossessed and then resold or where account records had suspicious entries for payments debtors said they never made. Because of the discrepancies in the car accounts and in the lawsuits, Legal Aid believes ADLP, DBC and Alford Motors may have violated Ohio consumer protection laws. Sharlene Graham is a former trial attorney and currently a tenured professor of 31 years at the Chase College of Law at Northern Kentucky University. Graham reviewed the cases as an independent expert.”There is a lot in these cases to be gravely concerned about,” she said. “There are some glaring irregularities between some of the documents that I observed in the contracts and let’s say, affidavits that were signed by the debtors.”WLWT found multiple lawsuits with two different sales contracts. Legal Aid’s complaint includes an affidavit from a Springfield Township woman who was sued twice in 2021, once by ADLP Investments for $6,462.01 and once by DBC Holdings for $12,195.19. Both lawsuits were attempting to collect on the same vehicle, a used Ford Explorer that the plaintiffs said the woman bought from Alford Motors in April 2014.Attached to each lawsuit were two different sales contracts signed by different car salesmen and with different signatures for the buyer. In a signed affidavit, the defendant wrote she “never purchased a car from Alford Motors, and I have never owned a Ford Explorer.” Both lawsuits got dismissed. Other people who fought their cases said they never signed the sales contracts filed with the court. WLWT and Graham examined signatures from affidavits and the debtor’s signature on their sales contract.”There is no way those two signatures are exactly the same,” Graham said.At least one of the names was even misspelled. Legal Aid’s complaint also alleges some lawsuits noted nominal payments, after a vehicle was returned or repossessed, that the consumers say they never made.For example, a former owner of a 2003 Volkswagen Jetta said in a signed affidavit that he returned the car and stopped making payments in February 2015. The payment ledger shows a $100 payment on the ledger two years later in 2017.”Those payments also kind of coincidentally extended what’s called the statute of limitations, which is the amount of time a person has to sue,” Wall said. A ledger for a 2004 Chevy Malibu lists payments for $25, $20, $20, $30 and $70 made between 2015 to 2017. The receipt numbers for those five payments are consecutive: 803, 804, 805, 806 and 807.The former owner of the Chevy Malibu wrote in a signed affidavit “I did not make these payments. The last payment I made on the car was in November 2014.””Highly suspicious,” Graham said. According to its complaint, Legal Aid reviewed 116 lawsuits and found 34 of them did not have a payment ledger and 49 had “suspicious ledger activity.”The complaint also alleges “Alford Motors resold cars without crediting debtor accounts in more than half” of the accounts it examined. Under Ohio law, if a car is repossessed and then resold, the debtor’s balance must be credited with the value of the resale. “Because of what I have seen, I would reevaluate all of it,” Graham said. Alford Motors has changed ownership over the years. All of the underlying car contracts in question are from prior ownership. The dealership sold the car contracts in bundles, starting around 2019, to the two companies who later filed the lawsuits. Alford Motors is not a plaintiff in any of the lawsuits.McGee sat down with Rob Stein, the dealership president, in October. Stein said the dealership was aware of problems with almost 800 accounts, 799 to be exact. He also said lawsuits tied to those accounts had been dismissed by the companies who brought the lawsuits. McGee pointed out several issues Stein was not aware of. Then Alford Motors’ owners decided to audit all accounts sold off since 2019.”More and more people are going to be underwater. I don’t see this going away,” Fitzsimmons said. Through an attorney, the owners said they would sit down with WLWT after they understand the full scope of the problem.WLWT also contacted ADLP Investments and DBC Holdings for comment. We have not received a response from either company. While it is clear the issue is impacting dozens of local residents, it is not yet known exactly who is responsible for the account irregularities and bad lawsuits. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost’s office confirmed to WLWT it received Legal Aid’s complaint but said it can “neither confirm nor deny the existence of or potential for any investigation.”The Hamilton County Municipal Help Center is open to the public 8 a.m. – 3 p.m. on weekdays. You can reach them at 513-946-5650 or in person by visiting the Hamilton County Courthouse Room 113.Legal Aid offers free, comprehensive civil legal assistance to qualifying low-income individuals and families. They can be reached at 513-241-9400.

A growing number of greater Cincinnati residents are finding out they have car troubles in the courts. Local residents are being sued for cars many of them no longer own.

The debtors are being told they owe thousands of dollars, and some are even having their wages garnished. The Hamilton County Clerk of Courts first brought this issue to WLWT’s attention. Investigative reporter Jatara McGee spent weeks working to get answers.

The problems stem from the last 10 years or so, and the fallout is far from over.

Sade Herron, a Cincinnati mom of three, explained how her car troubles began around March 2015. She was pregnant at the time and needed a car to get to work. She went to a used car dealership and took out a $7,976 loan from the dealership to purchase a used 2004 Pontiac Grand Am.

“It was one thing after another with that car. Every other day it was something,” she said.

Within a matter of weeks, Herron said the car was overheating and even broke down on the interstate.

“It was very traumatic for me,” Herron said.

According to Herron, she complained to the dealer until it took the car back.

“My understanding with this company is that this is over,” Herron said.

She learned seven years later it was not.

This spring, Herron’s boss notified her of a wage garnishment notification for $10,100.47 from “ADLP Investments.”

ADLP Investments acquired Herron’s car contract with Alford Motors and was suing her to pay off the debt. Herron said she was never notified of the lawsuit so she did not appear in court. Since she did not appear, the judge approved a garnishment for the value of the contract plus interest and court costs.

“Well over the amount the car was worth,” Herron explained.

Attorneys at the Legal Aid Society of Greater Cincinnati pointed out several problems with ADLP’s lawsuit against Herron and got the lawsuit dismissed.

Herron’s story is not isolated.

Legal Aid found hundreds of lawsuits filed between 2019 and 2022, stemming from old vehicle debt for cars allegedly purchased from one Cincinnati dealership, Alford Motors. It is a “buy here, pay here” dealership that advertises “Job + Down Payment = Car.”

A few years ago, the dealership sold some of its old accounts to two companies, ADLP Investments and DBC Holdings, who went on to sue many of the debtors to collect outstanding balances.

Rob Wall is the director of the Hamilton County Municipal Help Center, a partnership between the University of Cincinnati College of Law and the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts.

“We see ourselves as an urgent care or emergency room of the civil justice system,” Wall said.

This summer, the waiting room was full of people complaining about the same issue.

“A number of these people, they had already lost the case without even knowing that they had been sued,” Wall said. “When you start to see people with the same story over and over again, that’s when it really solidifies in your mind. There may be a real issue here.”

The help center started referring people to Legal Aid Senior Attorney Matthew Fitzsimmons.

“I’ve seen a lot of smoke, if you will,” Fitzsimmons said.

He said Legal Aid has already helped more than 25 people sued by ADLP Investments, LLC and DBC Holdings, for debt purchased from Alford Motors.

“When we point out these problems to the other, the plaintiff’s attorney, they’ve agreed to walk away from it,” Fitzsimmons said.

“On all 25?” McGee asked.

“On all 25,” Fitzsimmons answered.

“For everyone that we’ve helped, dozens more have certainly been sued, been garnished, may not know that they truly don’t owe this money,” Fitzsimmons said.

Legal Aid filed a 160-page complaint with the Ohio Attorney General’s office in May. It analyzed 116 lawsuits brought by ADLP Investments or DBC Holdings for car contracts bought from Alford Motors. The complaint found many of the lawsuits had similar recurring, critical errors like where a debtor’s balance was not credited after the car was repossessed and then resold or where account records had suspicious entries for payments debtors said they never made. Because of the discrepancies in the car accounts and in the lawsuits, Legal Aid believes ADLP, DBC and Alford Motors may have violated Ohio consumer protection laws.

Sharlene Graham is a former trial attorney and currently a tenured professor of 31 years at the Chase College of Law at Northern Kentucky University. Graham reviewed the cases as an independent expert.

“There is a lot in these cases to be gravely concerned about,” she said. “There are some glaring irregularities between some of the documents that I observed in the contracts and let’s say, affidavits that were signed by the debtors.”

WLWT found multiple lawsuits with two different sales contracts.

Legal Aid’s complaint includes an affidavit from a Springfield Township woman who was sued twice in 2021, once by ADLP Investments for $6,462.01 and once by DBC Holdings for $12,195.19. Both lawsuits were attempting to collect on the same vehicle, a used Ford Explorer that the plaintiffs said the woman bought from Alford Motors in April 2014.

Attached to each lawsuit were two different sales contracts signed by different car salesmen and with different signatures for the buyer. In a signed affidavit, the defendant wrote she “never purchased a car from Alford Motors, and I have never owned a Ford Explorer.”

Both lawsuits got dismissed.

Other people who fought their cases said they never signed the sales contracts filed with the court.

WLWT and Graham examined signatures from affidavits and the debtor’s signature on their sales contract.

“There is no way those two signatures are exactly the same,” Graham said.

At least one of the names was even misspelled.

Legal Aid’s complaint also alleges some lawsuits noted nominal payments, after a vehicle was returned or repossessed, that the consumers say they never made.

For example, a former owner of a 2003 Volkswagen Jetta said in a signed affidavit that he returned the car and stopped making payments in February 2015. The payment ledger shows a $100 payment on the ledger two years later in 2017.

“Those payments also kind of coincidentally extended what’s called the statute of limitations, which is the amount of time a person has to sue,” Wall said.

A ledger for a 2004 Chevy Malibu lists payments for $25, $20, $20, $30 and $70 made between 2015 to 2017. The receipt numbers for those five payments are consecutive: 803, 804, 805, 806 and 807.

The former owner of the Chevy Malibu wrote in a signed affidavit “I did not make these payments. The last payment I made on the car was in November 2014.”

“Highly suspicious,” Graham said.

According to its complaint, Legal Aid reviewed 116 lawsuits and found 34 of them did not have a payment ledger and 49 had “suspicious ledger activity.”

The complaint also alleges “Alford Motors resold cars without crediting debtor accounts in more than half” of the accounts it examined. Under Ohio law, if a car is repossessed and then resold, the debtor’s balance must be credited with the value of the resale.

“Because of what I have seen, I would reevaluate all of it,” Graham said.

Alford Motors has changed ownership over the years. All of the underlying car contracts in question are from prior ownership. The dealership sold the car contracts in bundles, starting around 2019, to the two companies who later filed the lawsuits. Alford Motors is not a plaintiff in any of the lawsuits.

McGee sat down with Rob Stein, the dealership president, in October. Stein said the dealership was aware of problems with almost 800 accounts, 799 to be exact. He also said lawsuits tied to those accounts had been dismissed by the companies who brought the lawsuits.

McGee pointed out several issues Stein was not aware of. Then Alford Motors’ owners decided to audit all accounts sold off since 2019.

“More and more people are going to be underwater. I don’t see this going away,” Fitzsimmons said.

Through an attorney, the owners said they would sit down with WLWT after they understand the full scope of the problem.

WLWT also contacted ADLP Investments and DBC Holdings for comment. We have not received a response from either company.

While it is clear the issue is impacting dozens of local residents, it is not yet known exactly who is responsible for the account irregularities and bad lawsuits.

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost’s office confirmed to WLWT it received Legal Aid’s complaint but said it can “neither confirm nor deny the existence of or potential for any investigation.”

The Hamilton County Municipal Help Center is open to the public 8 a.m. – 3 p.m. on weekdays. You can reach them at 513-946-5650 or in person by visiting the Hamilton County Courthouse Room 113.

Legal Aid offers free, comprehensive civil legal assistance to qualifying low-income individuals and families. They can be reached at 513-241-9400.