News + updates + recent press
“The Delaware County Common Pleas Court General Division is now piloting a mediation program for civil cases. Any civil case may be referred to mediation based on a party’s motion and the approval of the court. The assigned judge may also refer any civil case for mediation. Parties may suggest a mediator from the approved mediator list, but the court will make the final selection and appointment of the mediator. The court will pay the approved mediator for the actual time spent in the matter, up to 8 hours of mediation time. In the event the mediator or the parties would like to request that the court pay for additional mediation time, they may file a motion with the court prior to incurring those expenses. This program does not prevent parties from utilizing a private mediator at their own expense. In order for the mediation cost to be covered under this pilot program, the parties must file a motion, receive approval from the court, and utilize a mediator from the court-approved mediator list.”
Last year we alerted our clients and partners to the Arkansas Supreme Court ruling in Davis v. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC, 2020 Ark. 180 (May 7, 2020), wherein the Court held the sale notices used by some Arkansas law firms was too vague to satisfy the requirements of the Arkansas Statutory Foreclosure Act. To initiate a statutory foreclosure, the Statutory Foreclosure Act requires the recording of a Notice of Default and Intention to Sell (“Notice”) that states “the default for which the foreclosure is made.” Ark. Code Ann. § 18-50-104(b). The notice at issue in Davis stated that “a default has been made with respect to a provision in the mortgage.” The Court found that such boilerplate language was not a specific enough description of the default to satisfy the Statutory Foreclosure Act. Fortunately, PLG’s Arkansas foreclosures were not affected by the decision since its Notice contained the language required by the Statutory Foreclosure Act. The Court’s decision, however, created a realm of uncertainty related to statutory foreclosures completed by firms using the faulty notice. The status of all such REO properties became a topic of much concern, and the industry sought to resolve these issues through the passage of legislation amending the Statutory Foreclosure Act during the 2021 Regular Session of the Arkansas General Assembly. Thus, Act 1108 emerged, which will most likely become effective on July 30, 2021, although this date could change due to peculiarities in Arkansas law.
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.
On December 31, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court amended Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510, that goes into effect May 2021.
The amended rule adopts the federal summary judgment standard. Prior to the amendment, Florida courts and the federal courts had not been aligned in their controlling summary judgment standard.
Prior to this amendment, there were two relevant differences between the Florida and the Federal summary judgment standards:
House Bill 621 has successfully passed the Ohio House of Representatives and is now before the Senate. Known as the Business Fairness Act, the Bill seeks to amend those sections of the Ohio Revised Code governing violations of prohibitions ordered by the Department of Health, Board of Health and various health districts (R.C. 3701.352, 3707.48 and 3709.211) by permitting businesses to continue operation in certain cases when ordered to cease.
Specifically, the Bill proposes that a “business that has been required to cease or limit operations by order or regulation… due to epidemic, threatened epidemic, or the unusual prevalence of a dangerous communicable disease, may continue or resume operations if it complies with any safety precautions that the order or regulation requires of businesses that are permitted to continue operations.” Proposed R.C. 3707.481.
The Michigan Supreme Court has amended its June 2020 Administrative Order No. 2020-17 that provided direction to state courts for resuming eviction actions. Prior to the pandemic, courts traditionally processed these types of cases in a “cattle-call” fashion, with numerous cases being called simultaneously and resulting in large number of individuals in crowded and enclosed spaces.
The Court noted in June that this method of processing eviction cases was inconsistent with safety protocol in place due to COVID-19 and would present a public health threat if removal of moratoriums on eviction filings resulted in a sudden increase in eviction filings once the court resumed full-capacity operations. Most notably, Order 2020-17 did three things:
The amendment extends compliance with Order 2020-17 through the end of 2020 in tandem with the CDC’s eviction moratorium and seeks to reduce “the possibility of further infection while ensuring that landlord/tenant cases are able to be filed and adjudicated efficiently.” Amendment to Administrative Order No. 2020-17.
The above information provided by PLG attorney, Ellen Fornash, licensed in OH, KY and MI.
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.