PLG NEWSNews + updates + recent press
|
Archives
March 2024
February 2024
August 2023
May 2023
April 2023
January 2023
November 2022
September 2022
August 2022
June 2022
April 2022
March 2022
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
August 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
February 2019
January 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
March 2018
January 2018
December 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
The foreclosure crisis starting around 2007 bore from it a slew of legislation which attempted to help borrowers facing imminent foreclosure or the loss of their home due to foreclosure. One such piece of legislation was the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. In February of 2010, the United States Treasury established the Hardest Hit Fund in an effort to provide targeted financial aid to states hit most significantly by the subprime mortgage crisis. Indiana is one of 19 states that received money from the U.S. Treasury to fund its Indiana Hardest Hit Fund (“the Fund”). Over the course of its run since 2010, Indiana received more than $283 million for the Fund, which was a program run by the Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority (IHCDA). The final deadline for accepting applications for the fund ended on May 3, 2021. The program provided eligible borrowers with up to $30,000.00 to reinstate their mortgage loans (see 877gethope.org). The Indiana Foreclosure Prevention Network boasts that it has provided over $182 million to over 11,000 Hoosiers in the State. Today, the Fourth District Court of Appeal for Florida in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Tan, Case No. 4D20-613, held that Fla. Stat. 702.036 barred the Court from granting relief as it related to a Senior Mortgagee seeking to vacate a judgment that was entered against them by a Junior Mortgagee. For a little more background on this holding, “a non-party purchased the real property at issue and executed a mortgage in favor of Bear Stearns Residential Mortgage Corporation. Bear Stearns assigned the mortgage to Wells Fargo. The non-party later sold the property to Chi Peng Tan, who executed a mortgage in favor of First Magnus Financial Corporation. First Magnus filed a foreclosure complaint against multiple defendants, including Tan and Wells Fargo. A judgment was entered that foreclosed all interests, including the interest held by Wells Fargo. The record shows that Wells Fargo recorded its mortgage before First Magnus recorded its mortgage.” This is case is not yet final. Ohio's New Statute of Limitations on Breach of Written Contracts Goes Into Effect June 16, 20215/4/2021
Senate Bill 13 was signed into law on March, 16, 2021, and effectively shortens Ohio’s statute of limitations for filing lawsuits based on breach of contract. While R.C. 2305.06 originally set forth a lengthy 15-year statute of limitations on enforcement of a contract, the statute was amended in 2012 to reduce the limitation to eight years. The 2021 amendment to Revised Code 2305.07 now further reduces the statute of limitations for breaches of written contracts from eight years to six and reduces the statute of limitations for breaches of oral contracts from six years to four years. The new law goes into effect on June 16, 2021. The statute of limitations in Ohio on legal malpractice claims is one year from the time the aggrieved party knew, or should have known, that the attorney committed malpractice, or from the time the attorney stopped representing the aggrieved party on that particular legal matter, whichever is later. O.R.C. 2305.11. However, Senate Bill 13 was recently passed in Ohio, and currently awaits the Governor’s signature. The Bill adds section 2305.117 to the Ohio Revised Code, and while the new section does not replace or negate 2305.11, it seeks to add a statute of repose, requiring all legal malpractice claims to be filed within 4 years, regardless of then the malpractice was actually discovered. Once signed into law, while the one year statute still applies, this will supplement the current rule in place. Skyworks, Ltd. v. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, No. 5:20-CV-2407, 2021 WL 911720 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 10, 2021) is a case of first impression for Ohio. While the Eastern District of Texas in Terkel v. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, 6:20-CV-00564, 2021 WL 742877 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 25, 2021), found that the CDC Order to be unconstitutional, Skyworks holds that the “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's orders—Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions to Prevent the Further Spread of COVID-19, 85 Fed. Reg. 55,292 (Sept. 4, 2020) and Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions to Prevent the Further Spread of COVID-19, 86 Fed. Reg. 8020 (Feb. 3, 2021)—exceed the agency's statutory authority provided in Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. § 264(a), and the regulation at 42 C.F.R. § 70.2 promulgated pursuant to the statute, and are, therefore, invalid.” The Ohio case focuses on statutory authority, while the Texas case focuses on constitutionality. In 2015, the execution requirements for deeds and other documents affecting title to real property changed. Previously, deeds and these types of title documents could be executed with two witnesses and an acknowledgment by the notary. However, the new law requires two “attesting” witnesses. One of these witnesses must be an “official” witness, which is almost always the notary. The key change is the “attestation” requirement and what this means in practical use. By its own language, a notary acknowledgment states that the person executing the document only acknowledged to the notary that they signed the document. The usual notary acknowledgment language does not state that the notary actually saw the signor execute the document in their presence. The requirement in Georgia is that the notary must attest, or in plain terms, actually witness the signing of the document for it to be valid and recordable. |
PLG BLOG DISCLAIMER
The information contained on this blog shall not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion. The existence of or review and/or use of this blog or any information hereon does not and is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Further, no information on this blog should be construed as investment advice. Independent legal and financial advice should be sought before using any information obtained from this blog. It is important to note that the cases are subject to change with future court decisions or other changes in the law. For the most up-to-date information, please contact Padgett Law Group (“PLG”). PLG shall have no liability whatsoever to any user of this blog or any information contained hereon, for any claim(s) related in any way to the use of this blog. Users hereby release and hold harmless PLG of and from any and all liability for any claim(s), whether based in contract or in tort, including, but not limited to, claims for lost profits or consequential, exemplary, incidental, indirect, special, or punitive damages arising from or related to their use of the information contained on this blog or their inability to use this blog. This Blog is provided on an "as is" basis without warranties of any kind, either express or implied, including, but not limited to, warranties of title or implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. |
Padgett Law Group and Padgett Law Group EP are D/B/As of Timothy D. Padgett, P.A. Timothy D. Padgett, P.A.'s practice areas include creditors' rights, estate planning and probate, real estate transactions and litigation. Not all practices or services are available in all states in which Timothy D. Padgett, P.A. practices.
PRIVACY STATEMENT | WEBSITE DESIGN BY SQFT.MANAGEMENT
|