Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Major Change to Franklin County, Ohio Eviction Process: Landlord Testimony Required

Client Alert

Although there is currently a nationwide temporary halt on all residential evictions through December 31, 2020, the eviction process in Franklin County – which processes the highest number of evictions in the State of Ohio at approximately 18,000 a year – recently changed significantly. On September 3, 2020, the Tenth District Court of Appeals issued a decision holding that landlords and property managers must provide live testimony, as opposed to an affidavit, in order to evict a tenant. T&R Properties, Inc. v. Wimberly, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 19AP-567, 2020-Ohio-4279. This decision comes after the August 2019 eviction of Traci Wiberly, who was evicted from her Canal Winchester Apartment following a hearing in which neither she nor her landlord were present. Judgment was granted in favor of the landlord based solely on an affidavit, with no live testimony presented by either party in court. 

This decision overruled the 32-year old precedent set forth in Oakbrook Realty Corp. v. Blout, which was long interpreted by the Franklin County Municipal Court to “grant judgment on a forcible entry and detainer claim relying solely on the statements contained in an affidavit without any testimony being offered in open court. Wimberly at ¶46 citing Oakbrook Realty Corp v. Blout, 48 Ohio App. 3d 69 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988). The Wimberly decision rewrites a longstanding policy in Franklin County Municipal Court eviction proceedings. Now, live testimony must be given by the landlord and/or property manager in open court in an eviction proceeding, unless an enumerated exception applies. See Wimberly at ¶37.

If you have questions or need more information regarding the potential impact of the Wimberly decision, please contact your primary BMD attorney.


Corporate Transparency Act to be Re-evaluated

Recent federal rulings have impacted the enforceability of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which took effect on January 1, 2024. While reporting requirements were briefly reinstated, FinCEN has now paused enforcement and is reevaluating the CTA. Businesses are no longer required to submit reports until further guidance is issued. For updates and legal counsel, contact BMD Member Blake Gerney.

Ohio Recovery Housing Operators Beware: House Bill 58 Seeks to Make Major Changes

Ohio House Bill 58 proposes significant changes to recovery housing oversight, granting ADAMH Boards authority to inspect and investigate recovery residences. The bill also introduces a Certificate of Need (CON) program, requiring state approval for major facility changes. OMHAS will assess applications based on cost, quality, accessibility, and financial feasibility. The bill also establishes a recovery housing residence fund to support inspections. For more information, contact BMD attorneys Daphne Kackloudis or Jordan Burdick.

January 2025 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Brings Notable Changes to HIPAA Security Rule

In January 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services proposed amendments to the HIPAA Security Rule, aiming to enhance cybersecurity for covered entities (CEs) and business associates (BAs). Key changes include mandatory compliance audits, workforce training, vulnerability scans, and risk assessments. Comments on the proposed rule are due by March 7, 2025.

Corporate Transparency Act Effective Again

The federal judiciary has issued multiple rulings on the enforceability of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which took effect on January 1, 2024. Previously, enforcement was halted nationwide due to litigation in Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury. However, on February 18th, the court lifted the stay, reinstating the CTA’s reporting requirements. Non-exempt entities now have until March 21, 2025, to comply. Businesses should act promptly to avoid civil penalties of $591 per day and potential criminal liability.

Status Update: Physician Noncompete Agreements in Ohio

Noncompete agreements remain enforceable in Ohio if they meet specific legal requirements. While the AMA and FTC have challenged these restrictions, courts continue to uphold reasonable noncompete provisions for physicians. Recent cases, like MetroHealth System v. Khandelwal, highlight how courts may modify overly restrictive agreements to balance employer interests with patient care. With ongoing legal challenges to the FTC’s proposed ban, Ohio physicians should consult a healthcare attorney before signing or challenging a noncompete agreement.