The USPTO will allow inventors to patent and trademark their intellectual property. The new office will benefit Detroit by adding over 100 high-paying, high-skilled jobs in the first year alone. Additionally, the office is expected to lift Michigan’s innovation economy.

The new office is named after Elijah J. McCoy, an African American inventor from Ypsilanti, Michigan. McCoy was the son of two escaped slaves from Kentucky, who escaped using the Underground Railroad to Canada, where McCoy was born. After graduating from high school in Ypsilanti, McCoy moved to Scotland where he studied engineering. McCoy held 57 patents. His most well known invention was the oil drip cup, which continuously fed oil to steam engines. Allegedly, this invention was the inspiration for the phrase “the real McCoy.”

Under 28 USC § 1332(a), federal courts have jurisdiction where the parties are diverse and “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” If the amount in controversy is not met, then the case will be remanded to the state court.

In Freeland v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted § 1332(a) and ruled that the federal courts do not have diversity jurisdiction where the amount is exactly $75,000. In Freeland, there was a dispute over the amount of money that an insurance company was required to pay under a policy. The insurance company believed it was required to only pay $25,000, while the plaintiffs claimed that the insurance company was required to pay $100,000. The issue the court had to determine was whether the amount in controversy requirement under § 1332(a) was met.

The sixth circuit ruled that the federal courts lacked jurisdiction in the case because the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000. Even though there was the potential for a $100,000 recovery by the plaintiffs, the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000 because “the value of the consequences which may result from the litigation” was not more than $75,000. In other words, because it was undisputed that the plaintiffs were owed at least $25,000, but no more than $100,000, the value of the case was at most exactly $75,000.  To meet the jurisdictional threshold for federal court, the amount in controversy had to exceed $75,000 by at least a penny.  Since it did not, the court was obligated to remand the case back to the state court.

The Top Lawyer designation is a peer-reviewed award, meaning that Mr. Demorest was selected by other metropolitan Detroit lawyers. The selection process is demanding. Over 21,000 lawyers were polled and asked to name three lawyers for each practice area.

DBusiness magazine also previously honored Mr. Demorest as one of the Top Lawyers in Detroit for the area of general Business Law in 2010. He has also been named a Michigan Super Lawyer every year from 2007 through 2011 for Business Law.

Among other cases, Mr. Demorest represented the prevailing parties in two precedent-setting inverse condemnation cases in Michigan, both of which resulted in large jury verdicts for our clients. In Merkur Steel Supply, Inc. v City of Detroit and Steel Associates, Inc. v City of Detroit, he obtained jury verdicts of $6.8 Million and $4 Million, which were subsequently affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court. In these cases, his clients were tenants of commercial property in the City of Detroit. The City of Detroit interfered with the operation of their businesses because the City of Detroit planned to acquire the property where the tenants were located. He proved that the City of Detroit had improperly interfered with the property rights of the tenants.

Mark Demorest and Demorest Law firm take great pride in their eminent domain and condemnation law practice area. Demorest Law firm has represented numerous clients in this area, both businesses and individuals.

One of the existing rules under HARP is about to get a major rewrite during 2012. Currently homeowners whose loans are owned by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac can refinance their underwater home if the loan to value (LTV) is less than 125% of the appraised value.

During 2012 as the major changes to this program are rolled out, the 125% LTV cap will be removed. This program could potentially allow more underwater homeowners to refinance at today’s historically low rates.

Susan Tompor’s article in the Detroit Free Press does an excellent job at summarizing the qualifications that a homeowner would need to meet to possibly qualify under HARP.

Please copy the following address in your web browser to access the article.

http://www.freep.com/article/20111110/COL07/111100506

In a recently decided case, Township of Blair v. Lamar OCI North Corp., (available at: http://milawyersweekly.com/fulltext-opinions/2011/11/01/township-of-blair-v-lamar-oci-north-corp-michigan-court-of-appeals-unpublished/)  the Michigan Court of Appeals discussed whether improvements may be made to a non-conforming use without destroying the protection from having to comply with the current regulations. In that case, a billboard violated the zoning laws in three ways. First, the billboard’s surface area was too large. Second, the billboard was too close to other billboards. Finally, the billboard was too tall. The owner of the billboard made changes to the height and surface area of the billboard, bringing them in conformity with the zoning laws. However, the billboard still violated the zoning regulation concerning distance between other billboards.  In other words, two of the three violations had been eliminated by the modifications.

After the modifications were made, the Township brought suit against the owners of the billboards to compel their removal. Even though the owner of the billboard fixed two of three non-conformities, the Court of Appeals ruled that the billboard still violated the current zoning regulations and ruled for the Township. Although this might seem unfair—after all, the billboard was in better conformity after the changes—it is important to note that the purpose of allowing non-conforming uses are for fairness. Once any changes have been made, it is expected that those changes will make bring the property into full compliance with applicable regulations.

Because of the quirks and intricacies of zoning laws, it is important for those who have been granted variances for non-conforming uses to seek legal advice prior to making improvements or changes to their property. Without help, those with non-conforming use variances might end up unintentionally losing those rights.

For those of you small business owners that haven’t taken the time to check in with your CPA regarding your tax status, it’s time!

The good news is that if you do the planning between now and the end of the year, you can still minimize the amount of tax you will be faced with come April 15, 2012 BUT the window of opportunity is closing quickly.

At this point to minimize the tax bite your CPA should assess the business operating results through your third quarter and then project results through the end of the year. Armed with this projection your tax professional will be able to guide you through the steps necessary cut those pesky tax costs.

Annie Mueller in her article “Timely Tax Tips For Small Business Owners” addresses some planning pointers well worth considering. To see the article copy the following link into your web browser:

http://www.openforum.com/articles/timely-tax-tips-for-small-business-owners?extlink=em-openf-SBdaily

Wouldn’t it be great if you had a second chance? Of course it would be. We all love to play Monday morning quarterback. If you converted an IRA to a Roth IRA during 2010 you still have a second chance to undo this conversion if you need to. However you only have until Monday October 17th, 2011 to make this decision.

Susan Tompor’s article in the Detroit Free Press did an excellent job of the issues to consider should you wish to exercise this second chance.

To access her article please copy the following link into your web browser.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2011110020468

The Attorney General first concluded that the Smoking Ban does not apply to marihuana. The Smoking Ban does not apply because the Smoking Ban applies only to tobacco products and marihuana is not a tobacco product. After dismissing the notion that the Smoking Ban applies to marihuana, the Attorney General concluded that the MMMA does ban the smoking of marihuana in the public areas of food service establishments, hotels, and apartments. Next, the Attorney General concluded that the MMMA does not prevent an owner of a food service establishment, hotel, or apartment complex from prohibiting either the smoking of or growing of marihuana within on the property.

Although the Attorney General has released this opinion, it is important to note that his opinions are neither legally binding nor are they precedent. As a result, the Michigan courts may come to other conclusions. That said, the Attorney General’s position is well stated and supported by the case law and statutes.

As a business owner, depending on your goals and concerns, it is important to realize that prohibiting just the smoking and growing of marihuana does not guarantee that marihuana will not be consumed on your property. It is important to understand that marihuana may be consumed in other manners. For example, marihuana may be consumed in food and through beverages as well as ingested via vaporizer. Thus, it is important to develop policies that regulate marihuana used via these other methods.

Entrepreneurs typically are in a hurry to open their business but forget to do the proper planning or to line up enough capital. As the article points out in the tax avoidance section, an accountant may seem like a luxury to a start up business; however they do in fact save your business money over time.

While the article is good it does not discuss the 4 D’s: death, divorce, disability and disinterest. The 4 D’s can be just as harmful to your business, especially if there are multiple owners or partners. You can however reduce the effect that the 4 D’s have on your business by having shareholder or operating agreements in place. These agreements will spell out how the business will resolve the 4 D’s when they occur.

To access the article copy & paste the following address into your web browser.

http://www.openforum.com/articles/the-7-most-common-money-mistakes-that-entrepreneurs-make