Showing 11 posts in Ohio.
The fortunes of those who owe you money can vary over the years. This blog post explores how Ohio judgment creditors can capture their share of a judgment debtor’s improving financial situation. Read More ›
Ohio’s lis pendens statute is maddeningly simple. Ohio Revised Code section 2703.26’s two sentences read:
When a complaint is filed, the action is pending so as to charge a third person with notice of its pendency. While pending, no interest can be acquired by third persons in the subject of the action, as against the plaintiff's title. Read More ›
Good news! The Ohio legislature has offered financial institutions some legal protections in the form of the Ohio Data Protection Act (the “Act”). However, you must be proactive. It will be good for your business and may help in future litigation. Read More ›
A federal tax lien arises when the Internal Revenue Service takes administrative action to note in its records that the taxpayer owes taxes – that is to say, when the tax debt is “assessed.” That lien attaches to all the taxpayer’s property and equitable rights to property as determined by relevant state law. 28 U.S.C. Section 6321. See https://www.blockchainandbanking.com/irs-liens-after-acquired-property-and-the-doctrine-of-choateness. Typically, assessment occurs when (i) the taxpayer files a return, (ii) the IRS adjusts a tax liability after an audit / appeal process, or (iii) the IRS files a “substitute return” for a taxpayer who failed to file a required return.
Foreclosure cases often proceed without participation or significant defense by the obligor / mortgagor because that party is without both any defense and any funds to pay counsel. That happened in Green Tree Servicing v. Asterino-Starcher, et al., 2018-Ohio-977 (Franklin Cty. App., March 15, 2018). In Green Tree Servicing, as sometimes occurs, a junior lienor had the motivation and resources to contest the foreclosure. Read More ›
Ohio Revised Code Section 1336.07 is Ohio’s codification of the “Remedies” section of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”). The first and primary remedy listed in O.R.C. Section 1336.07 (and the UFTA) is “avoidance of the transfer” that is improper under the statute. Read More ›
On the somewhat unusual occasions when your judgment debtor has assets, the question turns to how do I maximize my judgment and collect every penny legitimately owed to my client? Here are some thoughts: Read More ›
Will the Real Owner of This Mortgage Loan Please “Stand”: The Necessary Standing for Ohio Foreclosure Actions After Schwartzwald
On October 31, 2012, the Supreme Court of Ohio was terrifying the banking industry by its decision in Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Schwartzwald, 2012-Ohio-5017 (Oct. 31, 2012) at the same time as ghosts and goblins were scaring children. In Schwartzwald, the Court answered the question of whether a lender could correct its lack of standing when commencing a foreclosure action by obtaining an assignment of a note and mortgage prior to the final judgment of foreclosure and sale. Read More ›
An insurance company’s efforts to deny payment of a claim by DSW Shoe Warehouse under its computer fraud rider to a “Blanket Crime Policy” was thwarted by a recent decision by the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. In Retail Ventures, Inc., DSW, Inc., and DSW Shoe Warehouse, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh , the Court affirmed the district court’s decision that the plaintiffs suffered a loss resulting directly from the theft of any insured property by computer fraud, and it rejected the defendant’s assertion that the loss was excluded under an exclusion for confidential information. The opinion provides a cautionary lesson for companies to review their blanket crime policies and fidelity bonds to determine whether they provide the coverage for losses they anticipate in the event of a data security breach. Read More ›
In Salyersville Nat’l Bank v. Bailey (In re Bailey), 664 F.3d 1026 (6th Cir. 2011), Chapter 7 bankruptcy debtors, prior to filing for bankruptcy, obtained a loan from Salyersville National Bank, pledging their home and 40 acres of land as security. Several years later, the debtors took out a second loan from the bank, this time pledging their truck as security. After encountering financial difficulties, the debtors eventually filed for bankruptcy in 2005. Less than a month later, the debtors and the bank entered into a reaffirmation agreement, which committed the debtors to pay the two debts that would have otherwise been dischargeable in bankruptcy. In particular, the debtors reaffirmed their secured indebtedness in the two loans, and in return, maintained possession of their home and truck. Read More ›
Ask the Blogger
Do you have a topic that you would like discussed in a future blog article? Please let us know. If you have a confidential question regarding a blog article, please feel free to contact the article's author directly, or let us know if you would like for someone to contact you directly.
William T. Repasky practices with the Litigation Department at Frost Brown Todd. He focuses on lending and commercial services; banking litigation and financial institutions.