KMK Law Real Estate Blog

On September 28, 2016, Ohio foreclosure reform takes effect following the enactment of House Bill 390 (HB 390).  The changes created by HB 390 will impact the foreclosure of both residential and commercial properties.  While Ohio foreclosure reform will undoubtedly cause county courts across the state to make revisions to their local foreclosure procedures and rules, the new law provides long overdue uniformity for foreclosing judgment creditors. Furthermore, the modernization of Ohio’s sheriff foreclosure sales, including the implementation of online sales, finally ushers the Ohio foreclosure process into the 21^st century.  Additionally, the new law expedites the foreclosure of vacant and abandoned residential properties—a positive step in favor of community revitalization efforts to fight against community blight and prevent the existence of “zombie homes.”

Introduction
On June 22, 2016, President Obama signed into law reforms to the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), referred to as the “Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21^st Century Act” (Act).  The Act is the first substantive reform to TSCA in about 40 years and  revises the process and requirements for evaluating regulatory control of a chemical and enhances public safety by increasing EPA scrutiny on existing and new chemicals being used in commerce.  The Act was approved by large majorities in the House and Senate and had the support of the chemical industry, business interests, environmental and health groups, etc.  The Act will affect what chemicals are used in commerce based on the potential for unreasonable risks to human health or the environment. 

On May 31, 2016, in United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc. et al., the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that approved wetland jurisdictional determinations (JDs) by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) are appealable final actions.  This decision enables landowners to appeal JDs that they believe are unlawful soon after the determinations are made.  The Court’s decision (see link below) eliminates the Corps prior requirement that a JD could only be challenged after the landowner applies for and is denied a permit or after the landowner proceeds with development without a permit and faces an enforcement action. The direct appeal of a JD will save landowners wishing to challenge a JD considerable time, effort, and expense.