Land grab victims win rights

SANDUSKY — An Erie County court granted class-action status in a lawsuit on behalf of 15,500 property owners with lakefront property, according to a decision filed last week. A visiting judge, William H. Woods, issued the order, appointing the Murray & Murray law firm, of Sandusky, to serve as legal counsel for the plaintiffs. The firm filed the lawsuit on behalf of George and Nancy Sortino, of Sandusky, who were named class representatives in the lawsuit. The lawsuit is for breach of fiduciary duties that all attorneys owe to all clients, including the 15,500 in this case, and it is a legal malpractice case, according to Dennis Murray Sr., senior partner at the firm. "(It is an action against) the attorneys who previously represented the real estate owners whose pieces of land were temporarily, but very illegally, misappropriated by (the state of Ohio)," Murray Sr. told the Register. In addition to Erie County, the property owners with lakefront properties live in Lucas, Sandusky, Ottawa, Lorain, Cuyahoga, Lake and Ashtabula counties. Margaret Murray Donna E. Evans Two attorneys from the firm — Margaret M. Murray and Donna E. Evans — deserve the most credit for brilliant legal work that resulted in the ruling, Murray Sr. said. He also praised the work of Judge Woods and the legal opinion in the order, which in his view is without equal as to class certification and with respect to the duties that all lawyers owe to all clients. Murray stated that writing a 62-page decision, which followed every mandate of the Ohio Supreme Court as to class certification, would have taken months of research and writing. The Murray & Murray firm has engaged in class certification cases for more than 50 years and is believed to be the longest-serving Ohio law firm for that discipline. Murray also praised the dedication of George and Nancy Sortino, who committed themselves to working with the firm, both also Michael Sortino and James Sortino each of whom testified on behalf of the 15,500 approximate damaged property owners. The effort by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources to take private property from property owners spanned a 13-year period that ended after the Ohio Supreme Court ruled against the ODNR. "ODNR arbitrarily claimed that it owned to the low water mark and then claimed ownership of the land between low and high water," Murray Sr. said. "ODNR then required many land owners who had built on the land which was claimed by ODNR, to lease their own land from the state and to pay rent for land that Ohio did not own." The property rights were returned to the landowners after that ruling. "The State has agreed to never again try to assert ownership," Murray Sr. said. Murray Sr. answered questions from the Register: Question: What was the state ordered to do in the prior litigation, and will it now have to do the same for the 15,500 litigants in this current lawsuit? Dennis Murray Sr. Murray Sr.: It started with the Ohio Constitution, which requires Ohio to pay up-front whenever Ohio takes someone's land. In the prior litigation the court declared that Ohio was wrong and that it did not own the land. Q: Did the previous litigation result in a monetary award, or a "make whole" award? Murray Sr.: Neither. Instead it was settled for a relatively small amount: $6.1 million. Q: How were plaintiffs harmed? Murray Sr.: They should have been given actual notice (of the prior litigation) since the Recorder's Office has (everyone's) addresses; and they should have been given the right to opt out and to bring their own litigation if desired. What happens next? Murray Sr.: Lawyers for defendants have stated that they will appeal certification to the 6th District in Toledo. Q: Is this an unusually large class? Murray Sr.: Yes and no. It is unusual for an injury/damage case. But we have conducted many cases on a class basis that were far larger, but mostly involved consumer fraud, insurance misrepresentation or stockholder frauds. Cases like our Western Southern Insurance that the Register featured or Waste Management that you covered. Q: Is the decision a new precedent? Murray Sr.: I think so, but it is sort of a new check on the need to monitor what our governments do. State and federal constitutions provide great protections against misconduct by our own governments, but do require constant vigilance. A good example is a sheriff department that has gone amuck. All levels of government have to be monitored, just like businesses need to be honestly operated. Q: Why is this an important decision? Murray Sr.: One of the most important ways to check adverse governmental conduct is to make it accountable in money damages. Both the state and the class members/citizens understand money damages much better that injunctive relief or in a promise to never again commit the same offenses.