Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

You can now enter into a Postnuptial Agreement in Ohio!

Client Alert
July 21, 2023

Earlier this year, Ohio was one of just two states (Iowa) that did not permit couples to enter into postnuptial agreements – agreements made between married couples that separate their marital and non-marital property in the event of death or a future divorce. The Ohio Legislature changed this on March 23, 2023, when it passed S.B. 210 legalizing these agreements.

The new law considers that a couple’s financial health and goals often change throughout their marriage and that they should have the option to terminate or update an existing prenuptial agreement, or execute (and later modify if needed) a postnuptial agreement, to reflect these changes. To exercise any one of these options, the following conditions must be satisfied: 1) the agreement is in writing and signed by both spouses; 2) the agreement is entered into freely without fraud, duress, coercion, or overreaching; 3) there was full disclosure, or full knowledge, and understanding of the nature, value, and extent of the property of both spouses; and 4) the terms do not promote or encourage divorce or profiteering by divorce.[1]

Life is unpredictable and the new law affords Ohio couples greater flexibility when planning for their futures, which most likely look very different now than they did before marriage. The law also takes the pressure off engaged couples who are contemplating entering into a prenuptial agreement. Additionally, the ability to enter into a postnuptial agreement lessens the burden of dividing up assets if a couple were to ultimately divorce.

For questions regarding S.B. 210 and your options, please contact Cassandra Manna at clmanna@bmdllc.com or (216) 658-2206.

[1]  S.B. 210, 134th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ohio 2023). 

SB 210Postnuptial Agreement
Client Alert

Enhancing Privacy Protections for Substance Use Disorder Patient Records

February 16, 2024On February 8, 2024, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) finalized updated rules to 42 CFR Part 2 (“Part 2”) for the protection of Substance Use Disorder (“SUD”) patient records. The updated rules reflect the requirement that the Part 2 rules be more closely aligned with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) privacy, breach notification, and enforcement rules as mandated by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act of 2020.Client Alert

Columbus, Ohio Ordinance Prohibits Employers from Inquiries into an Applicant’s Salary History

January 30, 2024Effective March 1, 2024, Columbus employers are prohibited from inquiring into an applicant’s salary history. Specifically, the ordinance provides that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice to:Client Alert

The Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board’s Latest Batch of Rules: What Providers Should Know

January 26, 2024The Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board has introduced new rules and amendments, covering various aspects such as CDCA certificate requirements, expanded services for LCDCs and CDCAs, remote supervision, and reciprocity application requirements. Notable changes include revised criteria for obtaining a CDCA certification, expanded services for LCDCs and CDCAs, and updated ethical obligations for licensees and certificate holders, including non-discrimination, confidentiality, and anti-sexual harassment measures.Client Alert

Governor Mike DeWine and The Ohio State University Introduce the SOAR Study on Ohio Mental Illness

January 22, 2024On January 19, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine and The Ohio State University announced a new research initiative, the State of Ohio Adversity and Resilience (“SOAR”) study, which will investigate all factors influencing Ohio’s mental illness and addiction epidemic.Client Alert

CHANGING TIDES: Summary and Effects of Burnett et. al. v. National Ass’n of Realtors, et. al.

January 17, 2024In April 2019, a class-action Complaint was filed in federal court for the Western District Court for Missouri arguing that the traditional payment agreements employed by many across the United States amounted to conspiracy resulting in the artificial increase in brokerage commissions. Plaintiffs, a class-action group comprised of sellers, argued that they paid excessive brokerage commissions upon the sale of their home as a result of the customary payment structure where Sellers agree to pay the full commission on the sale of their property, with Seller’s agent notating the portion of commission they are willing to pay to a Buyer’s agent at closing on the MLS or other similar system.
Older posts
Newer posts