D.P. Dough is a restaurant chain that specializes in a variety of calzones and late-night delivery. There are currently 23 D.P. Dough restaurants in the United States. Crumpton will work alongside his father, Mark Crumpton, who is the president of D.P. Dough Franchising, LLC.

“It has been a real pleasure and blessing to work with so many inspiring entrepreneurs and musicians over the past three years. The D.P. Dough brand is already a beloved institution at many colleges and universities,” said Crumpton. “I am excited to have an opportunity to build the franchise on the national level.”

Dustin Torres, a partner at Crumpton Law LLC, will be opening his own firm, Torres Law LLC, as of March 1, 2012, which will continue his practice in the areas of transactional business, litigation, and estate planning. “I have the utmost confidence in Dustin’s ability and wish him the best moving forward,” said Crumpton.

Matt Crumpton formed Crumpton Law LLC in April 2009, after being laid off from his prior employer during the economic downturn. Crumpton Law represented more than 150 clients in hundreds of matters in its three year existence.

Mr. Torres, who is licensed in both New York and Ohio, joined Crumpton Law in the summer of 2010 after beginning his legal career in New York City. Since joining the firm, Mr. Torres has continued to represent his New York clients in transactional matters, which have included the review and negotiation of contracts for multi-million dollar events from Shanghai to London to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City.

Mr. Torres has also been a crucial part of the firm’s litigation practice, assisting in a number of federal and state court matters. In addition, Mr. Torres is responsible for the firm’s estate planning practice and has helped a number of families and individuals create their first wills, trusts and other estate planning documents essential to protecting their loved ones.

“I have been thoroughly impressed watching Dustin develop as an attorney over the last couple of years,” said Matt Crumpton, managing partner of Crumpton Law LLC. “He has been able to achieve impressive results for our clients and is certainly a rising star in the Columbus legal community. We expect big things from Dustin as a partner.”

Ms. Maraffa comes to the firm from Chicago, where she worked as a paralegal for several law firms, specializing in litigation. Ms. Maraffa is originally from Columbus, where she obtained her degree in paralegal studies.  Drawing on seven years experience, Ms. Maraffa will be assisting Crumpton Law in all litigation, as well as in each of its transactional and entertainment matters.

“I’m excited about Shannon joining our team,” Crumpton added. “An experienced paralegal who understands what we are trying to do as a law firm is invaluable. I believe we have found that in Shannon.”

Crumpton Law LLC practices small business law, entertainment law, non-compete law, litigation, and estate planning in Columbus, and the surrounding communities of Worthington, Hilliard, New Albany, Gahanna, Dublin, Powell, Westerville, Grove City, Upper Arlington, Grandview, Victorian Village, Harrison West, Ohio State Campus, Clintonville, and Bexley.

We are pleased to announce that our managing attorney, Matt Crumpton, has released his music industry career book, Making It: How To Go From Wanting A Career As An Artist To Having One. Matt and his co-writer, Nashville based entrepreneur/musician Tristan Kinsley, spent two years working on this book.

“I was prompted to write the book because I have so many music clients contacting me about demo shopping and asking me to help them with their careers, said Crumpton.

“From experience, I knew that the best way to make it in the music industry is to help yourself. I wanted to give my clients the secret to having a music career (to the extent that a “secret” exists). I am excited to finally be able to give emerging artists a behind the scenes view of what it looks like to have a career in music.”

The book can be purchased at Amazon.com by clicking HERE.

Here is the Amazon summary of the book:

For years, up-and-coming musicians have wondered the secret to “making it.” Finally, there is a book that provides answers to those questions, straight from the source: successful artists themselves. In Making It, successful artists are asked the same question: How did you go from wanting a career as a musician to having one? Featured artists are Jerry DePizzo (O.A.R.), Joe Pisapia (Guster), Dave Barnes, Gabe Dixon, Five Times August, Chris Trapper (The Push Stars), Derek Webb (Caedmon’s Call), Marti Dodson (Saving Jane), Griffin House, Johnny Lee, and Erin McCarley. Reading this book will allow you to take control of your career by getting good advice from people who have been there.

Ohio Revised Code § 1335.05 states that, “No action shall be brought whereby * * * to charge an executor or administrator upon a special promise to answer damages out of his own estate * * * unless the agreement upon which such action is brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, is in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith or some other person thereunto by him or her lawfully authorized.”

In other words, contracts that are made by an executor or administrator that promise to pay a debt of the estate using the executor or administrator’s own assets, must be in writing and signed by the executor or administrator in order to be enforced. This requirement is very similar to our discussion of personal guarantees for the debt of another, seen in Part 2 of this series on the Ohio statute of frauds.

Beyond promises to pay for the debt of the estate, executors must also be aware that oral promises to make a will are also a concern, and they too must be in writing to be enforceable.

Ohio Revised Code § 2107.04 states: “No agreement to make a will or to make a devise or bequest by will shall be enforceable unless it is in writing. Such agreement must be signed by the maker or by some other person at such maker’s express direction. If signed by a person other than such maker, the instrument must be subscribed by two or more competent witnesses who heard such maker acknowledge that it was signed at his direction.”

This means that any agreement to make a will, or leave something to another via will, must be in writing and it must be signed. If the maker of the will does not sign it, an individual who has been expressly directed to sign it by the maker of the will must sign it, and there has to be at least two competent witnesses that can sign and affirm that the person who signed the agreement was directed to do so by the maker of the will.

A recent Fulton County case illustrates the issues arising from an oral promise to make a will. Bonita LaPoint’s four stepchildren brought claims against Woodrow Templeton, executor of their stepmother’s estate, in response to promises made by Bonita following the death of her husband. Bonita had provided waivers to all the children. In return for signing the waiver, in which the children stated they would not dispute the will of Mr. LaPoint, Bonita promised to ensure that her own will would result in the family business assets being split between Bonita’s natural children, and all remaining assets being split equally among all of Bonita’s natural children and stepchildren. While almost all the children signed the waiver, the waivers subsequently disappeared and no other written contract was in place. Upon Bonita’s death, instead of an equal division of assets among all the children, all remaining business interests went to one natural child and the remaining assets were distributed equally between three charitable organizations. The court found Bonita’s promise to the children was a promise to create a new will, and consequently Ohio revised Code § 2107.04 applied. In the absence of a suitable written contract, Bonita’s promise to create a will resulting in equal distribution of assets among all the children was unenforceable.

As this case shows, an agreement to make a will must be in writing to be enforceable. Likewise, a promise by an executor or administrator to pay the debt of an estate must also be in writing to be enforceable. When an individual dies we may seek the security of knowing that outstanding debts will be taken care of and that promised wills are in existence and will be carried out. A qualified attorney can help provide you with this security by assisting you in placing these kinds of promises in writing, in line with Ohio’s statute of frauds requirements.

Crumpton Law LLC and its attorneys practice small business law in Columbus, Ohio, and throughout the surrounding counties and cities of Franklin County, Delaware County, Union County, Madison County, Pickaway County, Fairfield County, Licking County, Dublin, Powell, Lewis Center, Worthington, Westerville, New Albany, Gahanna, Bexley, Reynoldsburg, Canal Winchester, Grove City, Hilliard and Upper Arlington.

Ohio Revised Code § 1302.04(A), in line with Uniform Commercial Code § 2-201, states that, “Except as otherwise provided in this section a contract for the sale of goods for the price of five hundred dollars or more is not enforceable by way of action or defense unless there is some writing sufficient to indicate that a contract for sale has been made between the parties and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought or by his authorized agent or broker.”

This means that when an agreement is made for the purchase of goods, and the price of the goods at the time of purchase exceeds $500, the agreement needs to be made in writing to be enforceable.

A Summit County case involving heavy construction equipment illustrates the amount of money that can be at stake and the necessity of written contracts for the purchase of goods exceeding $500.

An oral contract was made between Summit Tree & Landscaping and Stow Contracting, in which payments were to be made by Stow towards the purchase of a bulldozer and skid steer “Bobcat” for a sales total of $110,000. Stow began making payments towards the equipment over the course of several months before a dispute arose between the parties about the remaining balance. At this point Summit Tree repossessed the bulldozer. As a result, Stow had to pay for a bulldozer rental before purchasing a bulldozer for over $101,000. Given the fact that the original contract between Stow and Summit Tree was made for the sales of goods well over $500, the court held that a written contract needed to be in place to comply with the Ohio statute of frauds. Without a written contract, Summit Tree was free to take back the bulldozer.

This case demonstrates the importance of adhering to the statute of frauds requirement. To be enforceable, a contract for the sale of goods that exceeds $500 must be written and it must be signed. Some exceptions and defenses do exist to this statute of frauds requirement, and due to one such exception, the oral contract between Summit Tree & Landscaping and Stow Contracting was later enforced. The particulars of these exceptions can be complicated, however, and are best discussed with a qualified attorney.

Crumpton Law LLC and its attorneys practice small business law in Columbus, Ohio, and throughout the surrounding counties and cities of Franklin County, Delaware County, Union County, Madison County, Pickaway County, Fairfield County, Licking County, Dublin, Powell, Lewis Center, Worthington, Westerville, New Albany, Gahanna, Bexley, Reynoldsburg, Canal Winchester, Grove City, Hilliard and Upper Arlington.

Ohio Revised Code § 1335.04 states that, “No lease, estate, or interest, either of freehold or term of years, or any uncertain interest of, in, or out of lands, tenements, or hereditaments, shall be assigned or granted except by deed, or note in writing, signed by the party assigning or granting it, or his agent thereunto lawfully authorized, by writing, or by act and operation of law”.

Ohio Revised Code § 1335.05 further provides: “No action shall be brought whereby to charge the defendant * * * upon a contract or sale of lands, tenements, or hereditaments, or interest in or concerning them * * * unless the agreement upon which such action is brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, is in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith or some other person thereunto by him or her lawfully authorized”.

These provisions collectively mean that any contract for the transfer of an interest in land, including a contract to buy or sell land, or a contract to dispose of an interest in land (such as a mortgage or agreement allowing another to use your property for a specific purpose), has to be in writing to be enforceable.

A written agreement can easily dictate the course of a case, as was seen recently in a Franklin County case involving a land dispute.

Gary Carson and his four siblings were in a dispute with Second Baptist Church over who had a claim over an area of real property that was originally owned by Mr. Carson’s great aunt. Mr. Carson claimed the property was passed down to him and his siblings via Mr. Carson’s father. The church, however, had been using the property as a parking lot for several years. Evidence existed that Mr. Carson’s father, along with all the others who had received the remainder of the great aunt’s estate, had executed a deed in 1974 that transferred all of his interest over to the church. While Mr. Carson argued such a transfer would not have been in line with the intent of his great aunt, he wasn’t able to produce a written document showing that title to the property had been transferred to him and his siblings, and so he wasn’t able to establish that he had a better claim to the land than the church who had the deeds. For this reason, the church was deemed to have title to the property.

As this case shows, a written agreement showing a transfer in an interest of land is enforceable. For that reason any contract for the transfer of an interest in land, or any contracts to buy, sell, or dispose of an interest in land, needs to be made in writing. Given the prevalence of land agreements and disputes, and the implications of those disputes, it is best to talk to a qualified attorney for assistance in putting such agreements into writing and for any further discussion of possible exceptions to the statute of frauds.

Crumpton Law LLC and its attorneys practice small business law in Columbus, Ohio, and throughout the surrounding counties and cities of Franklin County, Delaware County, Union County, Madison County, Pickaway County, Fairfield County, Licking County, Dublin, Powell, Lewis Center, Worthington, Westerville, New Albany, Gahanna, Bexley, Reynoldsburg, Canal Winchester, Grove City, Hilliard and Upper Arlington.

Ultimately, prosecution in the Casey Anthony case fell short of establishing that Casey Anthony murdered Caylee beyond a reasonable doubt. Because they were not able to provide the jurors with sufficient evidence to prove the important link between mother and daughter, jurors were not able to produce a guilty verdict within the required standard of proof.

This case, and the verdict that followed, is an important reminder of the different standards of proof required in both civil and criminal cases, and what it takes to establish a guilty conviction.

In most civil cases the burden of proof required is “preponderance of the evidence”. This lesser civil standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. This means the plaintiff is found to have met their burden of proof if they are able to show that their side has evidence that is more convincing than the defendant’s evidence. If, after reviewing the evidence, there exists in the mind of the trier of fact an equal balance between finding for the plaintiff and finding against the plaintiff, the claim has not been established by a preponderance of the evidence.

Some civil cases require a slightly higher standard of proof, which is “clear and convincing evidence”. While this doesn’t rise to the standard needed for criminal cases, it is more demanding than a preponderance of the evidence standard. To meet the standard of proof required by clear and convincing evidence, the proof presented has to “produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established”.

Most of our clients at Crumpton Law deal with civil matters, and are consequently faced with the lower standard of proof of preponderance of the evidence.  Having a lower standard of proof may make the likelihood of success more attainable for many individuals.

In contrast, Ohio criminal cases require the highest standard of proof. Given the potential of criminal cases to result in much harsher sentences than civil cases, including life in prison or execution, the prosecution carries the burden to prove each element of the crime “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

In the Anthony case, defense attorney Cheney Mason presented a burden of proof chart, highlighting the high level of proof that beyond a reasonable doubt requires. The burden of proof chart Mason presented outlined all the different feelings that would be encompassed under “not guilty”, showing that even a small sliver of uncertainty would prevent a guilty verdict.

The Ohio Revised Code notes that reasonable doubt is “a doubt based on reason and common sense. Reasonable doubt is not mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs or depending on moral evidence is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. ‘Proof beyond a reasonable doubt’ is proof of such character that an ordinary person would be willing to rely and act upon it in the most important of the person’s own affairs”.

Whether the evidence against the defendant is circumstantial or direct, the same standard exists. It also means that it is not up to the defense to prove their own version of events, they just have to make sure the prosecution doesn’t prove their claims beyond a reasonable doubt.

The high standard of proof required in criminal cases have left many feeling that justice was not served in the Anthony case. But as defense attorney Cheney Mason’s chart showed, even a strong belief in Casey’s guilt is not enough to meet the standard of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. For that same reason, others consider yesterday’s verdict an important preservation of constitutional standards in this country. While many have voiced opinions about flaws in our judicial system, an important tenant exists in our county. That tenant is the presumption of innocence. Such a presumption and the burden of proof it carries is designed to help ensure that individuals do not face the high costs of conviction if there is any reasonable doubt that they committed the crime.

Crumpton Law LLC and its attorneys practice small business law in Columbus, Ohio, and throughout the surrounding counties and cities of Franklin County, Delaware County, Union County, Madison County, Pickaway County, Fairfield County, Licking County, Dublin, Powell, Lewis Center, Worthington, Westerville, New Albany, Gahanna, Bexley, Reynoldsburg, Canal Winchester, Grove City, Hilliard and Upper Arlington.

Ohio Revised Code § 1335.05 states that, “No action shall be brought whereby to* * * charge a person upon an agreement made upon consideration of marriage* * * unless the agreement upon which such action is brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, is in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith or some other person thereunto by him or her lawfully authorized.”

In plain language, this means that agreements that are made between parties, and are made only because those two parties are married to each other or are expecting to be married, need to be in writing and signed by the party making the agreement in order to be enforceable. This rule is seen where prospective spouses agree to certain settlements or division of their assets, or enter into prenuptial agreements in the expectation that they are going to get married.

One example of this happened recently in Trumbull County, and the case serves as a reminder of why it’s important to put such agreements in writing.

In 2001, William Scott sought a divorce from his then wife Janine. The divorce was granted and several years later the trial court issued a judgment for an equal division of the marital property between Janine and William.

Janine was the major wage earner during the marriage, and her higher income was the reason the parties had accumulated many of the assets at issue in the case. Janine was unhappy with the court’s division of property and alleged that there was a premarital agreement made between the parties in which both Janine and William were to maintain separate assets during the marriage. If this agreement was enforced it would mean a division of assets that was more favorable to Janine, but this agreement to keep separate assets was never put into writing. Because there was no written agreement, the Court of Appeals for Trumball County upheld the lower court’s division of property.

The facts of William and Janine’s case are not at all uncommon given the close and long-lasting relationship that marriage may bring. Often parties are not equal in terms of wage earnings or acquisition of assets, and in an attempt at fairness they make their own agreements deciding how those assets will be divided at a later time. To be enforceable under the Ohio statute of frauds, these agreements need to be in writing. A qualified attorney can assist you with these written contracts, helping to ensure that your expectations are met in the future.

Crumpton Law LLC and its attorneys practice small business law in Columbus, Ohio, and throughout the surrounding counties and cities of Franklin County, Delaware County, Union County, Madison County, Pickaway County, Fairfield County, Licking County, Dublin, Powell, Lewis Center, Worthington, Westerville, New Albany, Gahanna, Bexley, Reynoldsburg, Canal Winchester, Grove City, Hilliard and Upper Arlington.

In 2008, artist Jackson Browne went beyond a cease-and-desist letter, filing a complaint against John McCain and the Ohio Republican Party for the use of Browne’s song “Running on Empty” in a television commercial. Browne, a vocal Obama supporter, filed a complaint alleging copyright infringement, false endorsement, and violations of right of publicity. Browne alleged that at no time was a license for the song sought or granted, and as a result of the unauthorized use of the song, the public was confused into believing that Browne endorsed and was associated with McCain and the Republican Party. While the case was ultimately settled out of court, the allegations made, mainly copyright infringement and violations to rights of publicity, would likely be the same ones Petty will make in the event Michele Bachmann continues to use “American Girl”.

If Petty, or any other rock star, were to seek relief in Ohio, they would have to be sensitive to Ohio’s state-specific laws regarding right of publicity.

Ohio Revised Code § 2741 covers the claim of right of publicity and states that a person cannot use any aspect of an individual’s persona for a commercial purpose (including fundraising) during that individual’s lifetime and for a period following their death, unless that person obtains a written consent from the individual. In the event that written consent isn’t obtained, a private right of action may be brought by the individual to recover damages.

The goal of Ohio’s right of publicity statute is to protect the right of every person to control the commercial use of his or her identity. In Ohio, right of publicity is very similar to a federal claim of false endorsement. Like claims of false endorsement, the controlling issue in right of publicity claims is the likelihood of confusion. The court asks whether there is such an association with the product that it appears the individual endorses the product. A simple assertion that written consent was not granted, if left uncontested, may be sufficient to find a party liable under Ohio’s right of publicity statute.

In Tom Petty’s case, his demand for cessation was political in nature. In 2008 Petty permitted Democrat Hillary Clinton to use “American Girl” in her campaign, but did not extend the same allowance to George W. Bush in 2000 when the former president used Petty’s “I Won’t Back Down” in his presidential rallies. Petty sought to distance himself from Bush stating, “Any use made by you or your campaign creates, either intentionally or unintentionally, the impression that you and your campaign have been endorsed by Tom Petty, which is not true”. Such feelings seem to be echoed in Petty’s demand against Bachmann.

If Petty were to pursue such a right of publicity claim in Ohio, however, he faces some potential obstacles.

One exception that exists to an Ohio right of publicity claim, is when an individual’s persona is used in connection with any political campaign in compliance with Ohio campaign finance and election law.

The Browne v. McCain case, however, casts some uncertainty on how far that exception reaches. Like Ohio, California provides a right of publicity exception in the area of political campaigns. Though settlement occurred out of court, the California district court in the Browne case found the fact that the song was used in the context of a commercial for a political campaign, standing alone, was insufficient to bar the songwriter’s right of publicity claim.

Petty may also face a battle against a broader First Amendment argument. Even in the face of consumer confusion, some courts have permitted such use if it is outweighed by the public interest in free expression. Typically, courts look to see if a title of a work is artistically relevant to its content. If it is, a violation exists only if the “title explicitly [misled] as to the source or the content of the work”.

The fear of being tied to a political party or candidate may be a huge concern for a musician, particularly one who has vocalized support for the opposition. In Ohio relief can be sought through a right of publicity claim. Such a claim revolves around likelihood of confusion, and while some exceptions exist, the overreaching goal is to allow individuals like Petty control over their own identity.

Crumpton Law LLC and its attorneys practice small business law in Columbus, Ohio, and throughout the surrounding counties and cities of Franklin County, Delaware County, Union County, Madison County, Pickaway County, Fairfield County, Licking County, Dublin, Powell, Lewis Center, Worthington, Westerville, New Albany, Gahanna, Bexley, Reynoldsburg, Canal Winchester, Grove City, Hilliard and Upper Arlington.

Ohio Revised Code § 1335.05 states that, “No action shall be brought whereby to charge the defendant, upon a special promise, to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another person * * * unless the agreement upon which such action is brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, is in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith or some other person thereunto by him or her lawfully authorized.”

This means that a person who promises to pay for the debt of another or act as a guarantor for another’s obligation cannot be held to their promise, unless the promise is made in writing and signed by the person promising to pay the debt.

A recent Franklin County case shows the consequences of not getting personal guarantees in writing.

Lind Stoneworks entered into an agreement to fabricate countertops for Top Surface. Top Surface began to fall behind on payments. Despite alleged promises by Top Surface’s owner Martindale to “take care” of the delinquent accounts, Lind faced an unpaid balance of nearly $100,000.

The Court of Appeals in Franklin County found the agreement between the parties to be an oral agreement, with no evidence of a written contract. The Court also found that Martindale had no personal liability for the statements he made. In this case, application of the Ohio statute of frauds meant that Martindale, as guarantor, was not required to individually pay the $97,043.02 in unpaid accounts.

This case is a clear reminder of the importance of getting personal guarantees in writing to satisfy the statute of frauds. Not getting such promises in writing can result in potentially huge losses for businesses and individuals alike. While there are some exceptions to the statute of frauds, such exceptions can be complicated and are best discussed with a qualified attorney.

Crumpton Law LLC and its attorneys practice small business law in Columbus, Ohio, and throughout the surrounding counties and cities of Franklin County, Delaware County, Union County, Madison County, Pickaway County, Fairfield County, Licking County, Dublin, Powell, Lewis Center, Worthington, Westerville, New Albany, Gahanna, Bexley, Reynoldsburg, Canal Winchester, Grove City, Hilliard and Upper Arlington.