|
New Legislation Attacks
Problems in Residential Real Estate Lending
By:
Brent D. Rosenthal
The word “crisis” has often
been used in connection with Ohio’s residential real
estate market, and it’s hard to argue with that
description. Nation-leading foreclosure rates, along
with stories of rampant consumer fraud, grab the
headlines but are only the tip of a very large iceberg.
As the Ohio Legislature saw the situation, these were
mere symptoms of rampant systemic problems which
required extensive legislation to fix. So it happened
that last year the Legislature passed and Governor Bob
Taft signed Senate Bill 185, affecting virtually the
entire residential lending industry. The law became
effective on January 1, 2007.
S.B. 185 is sweeping in its scope. It is designed to
remedy numerous abuses foisted on consumers at several
different steps in mortgage lending transactions and to
close an information gap suffered by consumers
unfamiliar with the complex lending and closing
processes.
The new legislation has been most often portrayed as
consumer protection legislation and by including
residential real estate transactions within the coverage
of the Consumer Sales Protection Act (CSPA), it
certainly is that. The CSPA, Ohio’s primary consumer
protection law, in many circumstances gives aggrieved
consumers the right to recover treble (triple) damages
and attorney fees from those who violate the law.
S.B. 185 also imposes many new obligations on mortgage
brokers, real estate appraisers, and the title insurance
industry. Previous legislation required mortgage brokers
and their loan officers to be licensed by the Ohio
Department of Commerce. The new law goes further by
requiring national criminal background checks of all
applicants and by prohibiting licensure of those
involved in various criminal acts, such as theft, fraud,
embezzlement, and other crimes. In addition, operations
managers of brokers now have to undergo extensive
education covering lending laws, the CSPA, ethical
responsibilities, and a variety of other topics. And in
a direct attack on a widespread problem, mortgage
brokers must now give customers expanded disclosure
statements. Besides disclosing fees to be paid by the
customer to the broker and others, borrowers of loans
exceeding 90% of the home’s value must be told that they
may be unable to refinance the loan and, upon sale of
the home, they may owe more than the amount they
receive.
In hearings on S.B. 185, the Legislature heard stories
about unscrupulous acts in connection with real estate
appraisals, including unqualified appraisers, overstated
appraisals, and undue influence on appraisers by
mortgage brokers. The new law prohibits appraisals of
real estate for mortgage loan purposes by persons not
certified or licensed by the state. In addition, the law
prohibits anyone from corrupting or improperly
influencing the independent judgment of an appraiser
concerning the value of real estate to be used as
collateral for a mortgage loan.
Title insurance agents are also targeted by the new law.
Often the only people interacting face to face with
borrowers during the financing process, title agents are
now required to provide several new disclosures to
borrowers. For example, many consumers, especially in
refinancings, don’t understand that lender’s title
insurance provides no protection to them. Agents must
now disclose this fact and notify consumers that they
can obtain owner’s coverage. The new law also makes
available to sellers, lenders, and buyers/borrowers
“closing (settlement) protection,” which is basically
indemnification by the title agent against theft,
misappropriation, fraud, or failure to disburse
settlement funds properly. This latter action was
prompted by testimony before the Legislature about
refinancings in which the borrower’s first mortgage was
never paid off.
To attempt to stop the seemingly endless stream of
refinances which benefited everyone but the borrower,
the Ohio Department of Commerce and the Ohio Department
of Insurance have proposed a series of regulations to
fill in the details of S.B. 185. The new regulations
will address issues such as factors to be considered in
determining a borrower’s ability to repay a loan and
factors to be considered in determining whether a
refinance transaction provides a tangible net benefit to
the consumer.
It should not take long to see how well the new law and
regulations will work. With billions of dollars of
variable rate mortgages coming due this year, lenders
are bracing for an unprecedented flood of refinancings.
We will soon see how successful S.B. 185 is at meeting
its many admirable objectives.
Brent Rosenthal
is a Shareholder in the Real Estate
& Construction Law and
Business Law Practice Groups.
He can be reached at
brosenthal@bdblaw.com or
614.227.4266.
H.B. 487: Recent Changes to Ohio's Mechanics' Lien Law
By:
Martin J. Pangrace
The Ohio General Assembly recently passed H.B. 487,
which becomes effective March 29, 2007. The bill
primarily deals with mechanics' liens on residential
work, and includes new provisions which will assist
residential construction lenders and title companies.
Under existing law, an owner, part owner, or lessee who
contracts for labor or materials for an improvement of
real property must file a Notice of Commencement in the
office of the county recorder before the labor or
materials are furnished. The Notice of Commencement is
an affidavit that lists specific information about the
property, including the identities of the owner,
contractor, bonding company and any lending institution
involved in financing the project.
Currently, construction contracts between a contractor
and a home owner are exempt from this requirement.
Pursuant to H.B. 487, a Notice of Commencement may now
be filed on home construction contracts if the lending
institution requires it for financing purposes. Such a
filing does not, however, trigger the requirement that
subcontractors and suppliers serve a Notice of
Furnishing in order to preserve their lien rights, as is
the case for other types of construction. Since the
legislature left the matter to the discretion of the
lending institution, it is not clear how often this new
provision will be used.
Construction industry and real estate professionals
should also be aware that H.B. 487 establishes an
expiration date for all Notices of Commencement.
Although a Notice of Commencement does not expire under
existing law, H.B. 487 states that the Notice will
expire six (6) years after its filing, unless the Notice
specifies otherwise.
The bill also addresses priority between a Notice of
Commencement and a Mortgage by providing that if a
Notice of Commencement and Mortgage are recorded on the
same day, the Mortgage will now be considered recorded
first, regardless of the actual order of filing. Both
changes benefit the real estate and title industries by
promoting certainty as to the impact of the filing of a
Notice of Commencement.
And finally the bill clarifies the penalty when a lien
holder fails to release its lien for residential
construction projects. Under current Ohio law governing
residential construction, a contractor, subcontractor,
supplier or laborer cannot have a lien if the original
contractor has been paid in full. Failure to release a
lien in such situations makes the lien holder liable to
the owner or lessee for damages arising from that
failure to release the lien. The new bill provides that
these damages include, although they are not limited to,
court costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred in
litigation between the owner and the lien holder.
Questions about Ohio’s Mechanics’ Lien law or other
topics related to construction? Contact Bob Hager or
Martin Pangrace in BDB’s Cleveland office, or Don Leach
in BDB’s Columbus office.
H.B. 80 Requires enrollment in Drug-Free Workplace
Program for public construction work.
The General Assembly also passed H.B. 80 (effective
March 29, 2007), which requires that all State agencies
or instrumentalities award public improvement contracts
only to contractors, subcontractors and construction
managers who are enrolled and in good standing in the
Drug-Free Workplace Program of the Bureau of Workers’
Compensation. That program requires, among other things,
a written substance use policy; drug and alcohol testing
(pre-employment, random, and accident related); training
for all employees and supervisors; and assistance with
substance abuse problems.
Any contract entered into by a State agency must contain
a specific statement of these requirements and the
contracting authority must verify a bidder's enrollment
and good standing in such a program prior to awarding a
public improvement contract The failure of a contractor
or subcontractor to require a subcontractor or
lower-tier subcontractor to be enrolled and in good
standing in a drug-free workplace program will result in
the contractor or subcontractor being found in breach of
the contract. The new law declares that such a breach
will be used in the responsibility analysis of the
contractor or subcontractor for future contracts with
the state for five years after the date of the breach.
Questions about Ohio’s Drug Free Workplace Program or
other topics related to labor and employment law?
Contact
Douglas J. Paul in Buckingham, Doolittle &
Burroughs'
Cleveland office.
Martin
Pangrace
is an Associate in the Real Estate
& Construction Law
Practice Group. He can be reached at
mpangrace@bdblaw.com or
216.453.4294.
Time for a Trust Check-Up:
The Impact of Ohio's New Trust Code
By:
David W. Woodburn
This past summer, the Ohio legislature enacted House
Bill 416, Ohio’s version of the Uniform Trust Code. The
Uniform Trust Code is a model of trust law designed to
standardize the manner in which trusts are administered
throughout the United States. The Ohio Trust Code
(“OTC”) addresses all facets of trust law involving
inter vivos (i.e., lifetime) trusts. In particular,
the OTC considers several disparities that have arisen
in county probate courts and appellate courts throughout
the state, resulting in inconsistencies and varying
interpretations of trust law. House Bill 416 resolves
most of these issues and marks a significant step
forward in trust administration law.
In light of the new law, and the many changes created by
the law, it is important for persons with trusts to have
their documents reviewed to be certain that the trusts
comport with the new OTC. In many circumstances, the
need to update the documents to account for new OTC
language will be quite significant. That being said,
the OTC creates many new opportunities, such as the
following:
-
Modification of an Irrevocable Trust. A grantor
of an irrevocable trust and all of the trust
beneficiaries may now make a decision to modify an
irrevocable, non-charitable trust. Under the OTC,
the probate court may approve a modification to a
previously irrevocable document with the consent of
the beneficiaries. This change in the OTC allows
families to address issues with trusts that were
previously seen as untouchable.
-
Private Settlement Agreements. Settlors,
trustees, beneficiaries and even creditors may now
avoid going to court to resolve certain
administrative issues involving trusts. Now, these
parties can enter into an agreement and clarify
certain administrative issues without judicial
intervention. A private settlement agreement is an
excellent option for families that have discovered
problems with a trust after it has become
irrevocable.
Not only does the OTC affect how a settlor views his or
her trust, but it also impacts those who are serving as
trustees of irrevocable trust documents. Under the new
law, trustees will have significant mandatory reporting
requirements that did not previously exist. A trustee
will now be under an affirmative duty to keep current
beneficiaries reasonably informed about their trust and
how it is being administered. For example, if the
beneficiary requests certain information, the trustee
must furnish a complete copy of the trust to the
beneficiary.
Likewise, within 60 days after accepting a trusteeship,
a trustee must notify the beneficiaries of acceptance
and provide the beneficiaries with the trustee’s name,
address, and telephone number. The trustee must also
notify the beneficiaries in advance of any change in the
method of his or her compensation. More importantly, a
trustee must send to current beneficiaries, at least
annually, a report of trust property, receipts,
disbursements and liabilities. Thus, the OTC now places
a significant recordkeeping requirement upon trustees,
which will necessitate proper tracking of investment
decisions and performance.
All in all, the OTC represents a monumental step forward
in unifying the means by which trusts are administered
in Ohio. However, the new OTC is extremely lengthy and
detailed, and covers changes too voluminous to discuss
within this article. It is strongly recommended that
any person who has a trust in place consult with an
experienced trusts and estates lawyer to discuss how the
new law will affect his or her trust and the current or
future administration of that trust. This trust
check-up is definitely not one to be ignored.
David Woodburn
is a Shareholder and Chair of the
Trusts & Estates Practice Group. He is also
a member of the Real Estate &
Construction Law Practice
Group. He can be reached at
dwoodburn@bdblaw.com or
330.258.6506.
Department of
Justice Revises Policy Governing Criminal Prosecution of
Corporations
By:
Walter A. Lucas
More than ever before, corporations are becoming the
focus of criminal investigations and are being viewed as
potential targets for criminal prosecution. It is well
settled that a corporation may be exposed to criminal
liability for the illegal acts of its employees and
agents when the individual’s actions were within the
scope of his or her duties and were intended, at least
in part, to benefit the corporation.
In deciding whether to charge a corporation with a
criminal offense, federal prosecutors assess and
consider the level of cooperation that the corporation
has demonstrated during the course of the investigation.
Corporations under criminal investigation have often
times been forced to waive the attorney-client privilege
in relation to issues of corporate wrongdoing in hopes
of receiving leniency or “cooperation credit” from
federal authorities. However, the United States
Department of Justice (DOJ) recently introduced a
revised policy limiting the ability of federal
prosecutors to seek attorney-client privileged
information during the course of criminal investigations
involving corporations and their employees.. Under the
revised policy, federal prosecutors are also prohibited
under most circumstances from considering a
corporation’s advancement of attorneys’ fees to
employees involved in an investigation when evaluating a
corporation’s level of cooperation and making charging
decisions.
Under previous DOJ policy, as articulated under the
“Thompson Memorandum,” federal prosecutors were
permitted to consider whether a company had waived its
attorney-client and work-product privileges and whether
the company voluntarily disclosed the results of
internal investigations concerning corporate wrongdoing.
Federal prosecutors were also permitted to treat a
corporation more harshly when the company was advancing
attorneys’ fees for an employee under investigation. In
other words, corporations could receive leniency from
federal prosecutors by turning over privileged
information and by cutting off assistance to employees
or agents under prosecutorial scrutiny. Numerous
organizations and individuals -- including the American
Bar Association -- have maintained strong opposition to
this policy.
In response to widespread public criticism, Deputy
Attorney General Paul McNulty issued the revised policy,
known as the “McNulty Memorandum,” in early December. In
light of the significant potential criminal exposure to
a corporation in today’s regulatory environment, the
revised policy marks a noteworthy change in how federal
law enforcement authorities will conduct investigations.
Under the revised McNulty policy, waiver of the
attorney-client and work-product privileges is no longer
required for a corporation to be viewed as having fully
cooperated with a criminal investigation. The revised
policy still permits federal prosecutors to request
privilege waivers. However, federal prosecutors are now
required to first obtain approval from the deputy
attorney general and to demonstrate there is a
“legitimate need” by law enforcement for the otherwise
privileged information. The policy also points out that
prosecutors are still permitted to give favorable
consideration to corporations that voluntarily provide
privileged information in response to a criminal
investigation.
The revised policy states that federal prosecutors
“should not take into account whether a corporation is
advancing attorneys’ fees to employees or agents under
investigation and indictment.” However, when the
circumstances indicate the corporation’s conduct was
“intended to impede a criminal investigation,” federal
prosecutors are permitted to take into account the
payment of attorneys’ fees. Again, prosecutors must
obtain approval from the deputy attorney general before
considering the payment of attorneys’ fees as part of
the decision to charge a corporation criminally.
Recent legislation proposed by Senator Arlen Specter
would provide for even broader protection for the
attorney-client privilege in the context of corporate
investigations. If successfully passed, the proposed
Attorney-Client Privilege Act of 2006 would
legislatively overrule the new federal guidelines set
forth in the McNulty Memorandum.
Walter (Scott) A. Lucas
is an Associate in the Litigation
Practice
Group. He can be reached at
slucas@bdblaw.com or
216.453.4281.
New Federal Rules Change
Businesses' Approach to Litigation
By:
Christopher M. Ernst
Just before the end of 2006, revisions to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure went into effect. Typically,
changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not
impact the quotidian task of running a business.
However, these changes, whose genesis lies in the
explosion of electronic data in the past fifteen years,
are different. The new rules directly impact upon the
operations of running a business, and a failure to take
heed of them can have negative ramifications in the
future.
In the past five years in particular, there has been
much talk of e-discovery. As a result of this trend,
the federal courts have updated their rules to
streamline the process and make it more feasible for all
involved. Most importantly, the new rules expect that
businesses will have electronic document retention
policies in place. It is imperative, not just to create
these policies, but to implement and follow them.
Without an effective electronic documents retention
policy, a business risks incurring the wrath of the
United States Federal court system. The new rules
require that the parties “meet and confer” to discuss
discovery within approximately two months of the
institution of litigation. While this may sound like a
lengthy time window, in practice the opposite is true.
At this meeting, the parties are expected to
intelligently discuss the e-discovery issues in the case
and reach an agreement as to how e-discovery should be
conducted.
The revisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
specifically provide for the production of
electronically stored information including, but not
limited to, “writings, drawings, graphs, charts,
photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data or
data compilations stored in any medium from which
information can be obtained.” As a result, the rules
now codify the fact that an opposing party not only can
conduct discovery on paper documents, but can also
obtain emails, hard drives, flash drives, etc.
Discovery could even include voicemail systems and PDAs.
Once litigation is commenced (or, depending on the
situation, once litigation is “reasonably anticipated”),
a business is expected to place a hold on its documents
to prevent destruction. Without such a hold, relevant
evidence might be lost. A good electronic documents
retention policy, therefore, will address how to avoid
the inadvertent destruction of electronic documents.
This element of the policy is particularly important
since the risk of destruction comes not only from the
accidental deletion of files, but also as a simple
matter of data being overwritten.
An electronic document retention policy is so important
because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contain a
Safe Harbor provision that protects inadvertently
destroyed data as long as there are good faith efforts –
such as an implemented and maintained electronic
documents retention policy – to prevent destruction.
E-discovery is a costly and time-consuming proposition.
The changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are
designed to reduce the burdens of e-discovery to some
degree. However, the changes also raise the floor for
what is considered to be a minimally acceptable business
practice. Businesses should take steps to meet the new
minimum standards by revising existing document
retention policies or by adopting new policies to ensure
compliance with the rules.
Christopher Ernst
is a Partner in the Litigation,
Real Estate & Construction Law
and Business Law
Practice
Groups. He can be reached at
cernst@bdblaw.com or
216.736.4216.
|
|
|
Mr. Gerber will devote his
practice to providing general counsel services to
small closely held businesses and client
representation before the Internal Revenue Service
and state and local tax authorities. He has
significant experience providing legal services
relative to business formations and alliances,
mergers and acquisitions, federal and state
regulatory compliance, employer-employee
relationships and general day-to-day operations,
business succession and estate planning, real
estate, taxation, commercial and general corporate
services. He also has expertise in motor sports team
management and related sport law activities.
Litigation Practice Group,
Associate
Mr. Hemmert is experienced in representing litigants
in state and federal court proceedings, including
depositions and pre-trial hearings. He has
represented major broker-dealers in N.A.S.D. and
N.Y.S.E. securities arbitrations. In addition, Mr.
Hemmert has conducted all phases of arbitration,
including discovery practice, settlement
negotiations and witness examinations. He is a
former Assistant State Attorney for the 11th
Judicial Circuit in Miami, Florida former Commander, 528th Special Operations Support
Battalion, Main Support Company, of the United
States Army Reserve.
Mr. Kaufmann was formerly managing partner of
Kaufmann & Kaufmann in Akron, Ohio. His practice
areas include estate planning, probate,
guardianship, Medicaid planning, corporate law and
disability trusts. A graduate of Loyola University,
Mr. Kaufmann earned his J.D. in 1971 from The
University of Akron School of Law. He is a member of
the Akron (Probate Section), Ohio State (Probate
Section) and American Bar associations, and is
admitted to practice before the U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Ohio; the U.S. Tax Court; and
the U.S. Supreme Court. He is listed in the current
edition of The Best Lawyers of America and Leading
Lawyers in Northeast Ohio, and has been selected as
an Ohio Super Lawyer, Trusts. He is a fellow of the
American College of Trust and Estate Counsel.
Shareholder
Mr. Murdoch is a Florida Bar Board Certified Real
Estate attorney with more than 25 years of
experience. He has represented bank and lending
institutions in complex commercial and residential
transactions and is responsible for large volumes of
real estate contract negotiations, leases, closings
and title insurance. Mr. Murdoch maintains a
substantial corporate practice representing
entities, mergers, joint ventures, limited liability
companies and partnership matters. He has extensive
contract negotiation experience and preparation of
employment, shareholder and management agreements
and general business matters.
Mr. Mutersbaugh focuses his practice on estate
planning, probate, estate planning for the disabled,
elder law and corporate law. A graduate of the
University of Findlay, Mr. Mutersbaugh earned his
J.D. from The University of Akron School of Law in
2002. He is a member of the Akron (Probate Section),
Ohio State (Probate Section) and American Bar
associations and the Tax and Estate Planning Council
of Akron. He has been selected as a 2006 Ohio Super
Lawyer Rising Star.
Real Estate &
Construction Law
Practice Group,
Associate
Mr. Pangrace has experience in representing
architects, contractors, and engineers in defense of
liability claims. In addition, he represents clients
in state and federal courts and in arbitration and
mediation proceedings involving construction and
other commercial disputes.
Business Law
Practice Group,
Associate
Mr. Simon was formerly employed with Buckingham,
Doolittle & Burroughs, LLP as a Summer Associate in
1999 and an Associate from 2000 until 2003 in the
areas of business and taxation & employee benefits.
From 2003 through 2006, Mr. Simon served as Director
of Administration for Summit County Engineer, Greg
Bachman. As the County Engineer’s Director of
Administration, Mr. Simon managed a $16,000,000
annual budget, human resources, labor relations,
collective bargaining, information technology,
County, State and Federal audits, and general
compliance matters for the Summit County Engineer.
Mr. Simon also coordinated the application and use
of State Infrastructure Bank financing of ten large
scale federal road and bridge projects on county
roads and highways. Outside of the Summit County
Engineer’s office, Mr. Simon maintained a small
legal practice primarily representing small business
clients.
Employment & Workers'
Compensation Law Practice Group,
Partner
Ms. Still’s practice is limited to defending
employers in cases involving wage and hour claims,
discrimination under Title VII, the ADA, ADEA,
Section 1981. FCRA, and other employment law
statutes. Ms. Still has been Board Certified in
Labor & Employment Law by the Florida Bar since
2001, the first year certification became available,
and is also certified by the Supreme Court of
Florida as a civil circuit mediator.
Ms. Swett was formerly at Stark & Knoll and Matz
Petersilge & Weimer before joining Kaufmann &
Kaufmann. She focuses her practice on estate
planning and trusts, estate administration,
guardianships, estate planning for the disabled and
elder law. A graduate of Stetson University, Ms.
Swett earned her J.D. from The University of Akron
School of Law in 1980 passing the bar exam in 1980.
She is a member of the Akron, Ohio and American Bar
associations. In addition, she has been licensed to
practice law in New Jersey since 1990.
|
Kudos
Thomas J. Bonasera
(Columbus) was appointed Chair to the Franklin County
Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health (ADAMH) Board. He
was appointed to the ADAMH Board by the Franklin County
Board of Commissioners. His appointment runs through
June 30, 2010.
Speaking Out
Save the Date for these Upcoming Presentations:
March 1 -
Michael F. Copley
and
Michael V. Passella
(Columbus)
will
be speaking at a seminar entitled, "Ohio Construction
Law for Architects, Engineers and Contractors" at the
Radisson Hotel in Worthington, Ohio.
March 9 -
Mary Sue Donohue
(Boca Raton)
will be speaking to a group of lawyers at Mellon Bank
regarding current trusts & estates issues.
March 11-13 -
Donald A. Antrim
(Columbus) will be speaking at an event hosted by a5inc a national
marketing company out of Chicago to an invited
gathering of senior health care executives from
across the United States. The event is being held at the
Pinehurst Country Club in North Carolina.
The key note speaker is
Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the United
States House
of Representatives. Mr. Antrim is speaking individually
and on a panel concerning the development and
offering of outpatient services.
March 16 -
Thomas J. Bonasera
and
Michael A. Renne
(Columbus) will
participate in a Huntington National Bank teleconference
presentation regarding "Special Needs, Supplemental
Services and Wholly Discretionary Trusts."
March 21 -
Edward V. Buehrle
(Akron) and
Mark F. Craig
(Cleveland) will be
presenting at a Lorman Education Services Seminar in
Akron, Ohio. The seminar is entitled, "Real Estate
Development from Beginning to End." Click
here to register for this seminar.
March 28 -
Kristina M. Harless
(Canton)
will be speaking at SIGO's Annual Education Day
regarding, "Retaliatory Discharges: Coolidge vs.
Riverdale Local."
March 29 -
Don Leach
(Columbus) will be
speaking on "Liens and Encumbrances Affecting Real
Estate." This seminar is entitled, Titles
to Real Estate in Ohio and is an OSBA - CLE
Institute Seminar that will take place in Columbus,
Ohio.
April 5 -
David J. Lindner
(Columbus) will be
speaking on "Liens and Encumbrances Affecting Real
Estate." This seminar is entitled, Titles
to Real Estate in Ohio and is an OSBA - CLE
Institute Seminar that will take place in Cleveland,
Ohio.
April
23 -
Nicholas T. George
(Akron)
has been selected by Heart to Heart Communications
to be their keynote speaker at their annual Akron Speaks
Out for Values Seminar. Mr. George's topic is entitled,
"Faith Is What Makes the Impossible, Possible: 12
Steps to Lead with Character." The event is
being held at the Knight Center.
May 7 -
Mary E. Reynolds
(Canton)
will be giving a presentation to the Industrial
Commission Statewide Hearing Officer Training Meeting at
Maumee Bay. Her topic is "New Developments in
Workers' Compensation."
Out and About – Recent
Presentations:
Business Practice Group
Steven A. Dimengo
(Akron) spoke
at the 16th Annual Ohio Tax Conference in Columbus,
Ohio. His topic was "Ohio Sales & Use Tax: New
Audit Developments & Refund Policies."
Employment & Workers' Compensation
Practice Group
Barbara A. Knapic
(Canton)
made a presentation at a National Business
Institute Advanced Workers' Compensation
Seminar.
Robert C. Meyer
(Canton)
spoke at a National Business
Institute Seminar on "Workers' Compensation Basics."
Susan C. Rodgers
(Akron)
spoke to the Akron Society for Human Resource Management.
Her topic was "Minimum Wage, Smoking Ban and Trends in
Employment Litigation." Ms. Rodgers also presented
with
Amanda L. Walls
(Canton)
at the AkronWorks Career Fair regarding "The Top Ten
Things You Can Do in 2007 to Avoid Employment Law
Liability."
Amy L. Scheurman
(Cleveland)
gave a presentation on Ohio's new smoking ban legislation
to the Commerce Club of Akron.
Health & Medicine Practice Group
Joe Feltes
(Canton) gave a
presentation to Aultman Health Foundation regarding the
"False Claims
Act." He also spoke at the Aultman Primary Care
Summit on "E-mail and Physician Practices."
Thomas W. Hess
(Columbus) spoke to
the Ohio Health Care Association in Columbus, Ohio.
His topic was
"Advance Directives."
Jeffrey D. Weinstock
(Boca Raton) gave a presentation to
graduating dental students at Nova Southeastern
University regarding "Legal Issues for Healthcare
Professionals."
Litigation Practice Group
Scott J. Topolski
(Boca Raton) spoke at a National Business
Institute Seminar in West Palm Beach, Florida.
The seminar was entitled, "Insurance Law
Update: Understanding Coverage Trends."
Real Estate & Construction Practice Group
Don Leach
(Columbus)
presented at a National Business
Institute seminar entitled, "Mechanics’
Liens: Boon and Bane of Ohio Construction."
Trusts & Estates Practice Group
Thomas J. Bonasera
(Columbus)
spoke to the Franklin City Trial Lawyers Association on
“What Every Litigator Needs to Know About Probate.”
Mr. Bonasera also presented on two different occasions with
Michael A. Renne
(Columbus) and
David W. Woodburn
(Akron)
to the Huntington Trust Company concerning the "New
Ohio Trust Code and Its Impact on Trustees."
Patricia A. Pacenta
(Akron) spoke at the
Cleveland Estate Planning Institute meeting. Her speech
focused on “Trustee Selection and Succession.” Her
presentation formed the basis of an article for the
November/December edition of the Ohio Probate Journal.
Thomas J. Sigmund
(Columbus)
gave a presentation to the
Worthington, Ohio Estate Planning Group on the
Pension Protection Act.
Ronald F. Wayne (Cleveland)
presented to the Toledo School of Medicine. His topic
was entitled, “Fundamentals of Estate and Asset
Protection Planning for Physicians.”
Patrick J. Weschler
(Akron) participated in a discussion panel on family business at the
Turnaround Management Association’s annual seminar at
the Forum in Cleveland.
David W. Woodburn
(Akron) spoke to the
Akron Optimist's Club concerning "Estate Planning in
Ohio -- What You Need to Know."
INFORMATION ON SEMINARS OR SPEAKERS
If you are interested in obtaining information on
upcoming seminars or would be interested in having
speakers from Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLP
make a presentation to your organization, please
contact: Lorna
Henderson, Client Relations Administrator, at
lhenderson@bdblaw.com
or 800.686.2825 ext. 86473. |
