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 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.” 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. 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. On November 24, 2020, the Ohio Legislature introduced House Bill 797, which would require each of Ohio’s 88 county recorders to make publicly available the ability to electronically record documents, including those related to conveyances of real property, no later than January 1, 2024. Additionally, county recorders would be required to make available online access to all instruments recorded since January 1, 1980. While recording and document preservation fees would still apply, the Bill proposes that no fee can be charged for the use of the online database to review recorded instruments. Currently, a handful of Ohio counties permit the electronic recording of instruments, while many still require the original document to be presented in person at the office of the county recorder. |
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
|