Title Topics Briefs

Joint tenancy, Transfer on Death, Power of Attorney and Wills, Oh My! Unanticipated consequences are lurking in our title exams.

Fri, 19 Feb 2021 16:34:51 GMT

By Kelly A Spengler, Regional Underwriting Counsel, Westcor Land Title Insurance Company

Recently when working with one of our agents we discovered a divorce from the early 1970s in which the divorce decree awarded the ½ interest of the husband be held in trust for the minor child. The decree appointed the mother to act as trustee and set up some general guidelines for how the property was to be treated. After the decree the father conveyed his ½ interest to the mother as trustee pursuant the decree.

Fast forward nearly 50 years later and the mother was in contract to sell the property. (As a child of the 70s, I still can’t admit that it was 50 years ago). A divorce from the 1970s had to be consulted regarding the transfer of the ½ interest held by the mother as trustee. I don’t believe the parties to the divorce contemplated that nearly 50 years later the decree would still be relevant. I share this story, because it made me think of all the situations that can arise from even the most “simple” divorce.

Decrees and Separation Agreements from the Domestic Relations court can have many consequences in our title exams and therefore should be reviewed carefully. Let’s take a look at a few situations where there are sometimes unexpected consequences from a domestic relations case.

Alex and Cameron are conveyed the property as joint tenants with right of survivorship in 2000. A few years later in 2010, Alex and Cameron are granted a divorce. The settlement agreement does not mention the survivorship tenancy nor does it award the property to either Alex or Cameron as they were going to continue to own the property together.

Alex died in 2016 and Cameron filed an Affidavit of Survivorship to transfer the property to Cameron solely. Can Cameron now sell the property? O.R.C. Section 5302.20(C)(5) provides that unless the divorce decree, or separation agreement expressly states that the survivorship tenancy shall continue that the tenancy by survivorship shall become a tenancy in common upon the termination of the marriage. Therefore, Cameron cannot sell the property as the ½ interest of Alex was not conveyed to Cameron.

Our second couple, Lane and Finley were married in 2014. Lane already owned the property solely prior to their marriage. In 2015 Lane filed a Transfer on death designation affidavit, which designated Finley as the TOD beneficiary. In 2017 Lane and Finley were granted a dissolution of marriage. Shortly thereafter in 2018 Lane met an untimely demise.

Finley files an affidavit transferring the property pursuant to the TOD designation. Does Finley now own the property solely? O.R.C. Section 5302.23(B)(12) indicates that the TOD designation is terminated upon the divorce, dissolution or annulment of the marriage. Finley does not own the property solely.

In both of these examples Alex and Lane should be reflected as still holding title as of the date of their deaths. Consultation should be made to their estates and a determination made as to their interests.

A similar issue arises with wills and power of attorneys. Let’s look at our first couple. What if Alex left a Will and named Cameron as executor and left everything to Cameron. Again, there is a divorce decree entered prior to the death of Alex. The disposition of property and naming of Cameron would be revoked by the divorce, dissolution, annulment or actual separation. (O.R.C. Section 2107.33)

Let’s go back to our second couple Lane and Finley. Only this time, Lane has not yet met an untimely demise. Lane and Finley execute durable power of attorneys to each other. They again file for and are granted a divorce. Lane doesn’t really want to deal with the sale of this property and would rather spend a few weeks away from all this snow. Can Finley execute all the documents for the sale while Lane is away? Again, the divorce decree after the power of attorney is executed is revoked by the divorce decree. (O.R.C. Section 5815.32)

What is the moral of these stories? Don’t forget about all the different consequences of a divorce or dissolution. When your chain of title reveals a divorce or dissolution pay particular attention to the impact that decree may have as a matter of law. Now, if only it were easier to accept that the 1970s was 50 years ago!

The Boardwalk - Feb 2021

Fri, 19 Feb 2021 16:33:15 GMT

By Steven Smith

2020 - WHAT A YEAR!

In March of last year, our industry faced a once-in-a-century pandemic coincided shortly thereafter with an exploding real estate market fueled by the lowest interest rates in history. We quickly needed to find ways to close real estate transactions safely for all parties involved. Life continues to go on, even in a pandemic.

We quickly arranged for people to work remotely to reduce the number of people in offices and reduce the spread of the virus. Transparent dividers were used in closing rooms to separate and protect employees, buyers, sellers, and borrowers. One agency, whose office was a converted bank, conducted closings using the “drive-thru” to send documents to their clients who were sitting in their cars. The flexibility, creativity, and ingenuity of all to figure out ways to continue “business as usual,” while staying safe and adhering to local and federal guidelines was impressive.

The Ohio Land Title Association was also quick to respond. I remember shortly after a few county offices closed or reduced their hours, OLTA sent out a list of those closures followed by continual updates. They also had virtual fall and spring seminars enabling its members to obtain their CIE and CLE credits.

In September of 2020, I was appointed as a Trustee of the OLTA. I had always viewed the association as a social gathering where I could obtain my required CIE credits. I never realized all the hard work that went on behind the scenes.

When I said that I viewed the association as a social gathering, I meant this to be positive. OLTA is a great way to unite with colleagues at different periods in their careers, from those just starting to those who have been in the industry for many years. Having those relationships can be beneficial, as it allows us to share many business experiences, both good and bad, with other members. Through this collaboration, you can develop new ideas, work through challenging issues, and help grow your business.

During this pandemic, we have learned that things are constantly changing, and we must quickly adapt to those changes.

Being a part of OLTA is a great way to stay on top of how our industry is growing and changing, to keep up with new legislation, and to learn of up-and-coming trends that may affect you in daily decisions that you make. With the introduction of new technology and legislation and a myriad of issues that could arise, OLTA is needed more now than ever before.

I believe OLTA is about developing yourself, which in turn, will help grow the title industry. It is an honor to be part of this association. When we come together, OLTA allows us the opportunity to share our concerns, to share our challenges, and to share our experiences.

I know that 2021 will still have its challenges, but I am confident that our industry is prepared to meet those challenges as well or better than we did in 2020.

Are You Sure You’re Insured? Attorney - Adam Schwartz

Fri, 19 Feb 2021 16:31:15 GMT

Are You Sure You’re Insured?

When things go wrong, and the finger-pointing begins, title agents are often in the crosshairs. It’s no different when it comes to the theft of escrow money where agents are literally left holding the (empty) bag. Nor is the risk lessening with time—the chess match is escalating with higher-level security precautions met by increasingly sophisticated criminals.

The FBI confirms this. Its 2019 Internet Crime Report tells us that cyber-crimes caused at least $3.5 billion of losses. But that’s abstract. This is not:

Ohio was #3 in money lost from cyber fraud in the U.S. in 2019.[1]

Ahead of Texas.

Ahead of New York.

Ahead of Illinois.

While much attention is properly paid to preventing these losses in the first place, there should be equal focus on what happens if the best laid plans go astray. That means being properly insured. And as title agents know all too well, insurance can be tricky, if not misunderstood. So, let’s look at a few counterintuitive snapshots.

E&O Insurance is mandatory for title agents so to have it in place does not say much about the level of protection it provides. An example: In interpreting a standard E&O policy, a New Jersey court concluded that a title agency was not insured against a criminal stealing its escrow funds.[2]

The scenario was typical: a scheme where a phony email was sent to induce an employee to send money to a criminal. The agency’s insurer rightfully denied coverage, the court said, because it excluded losses related to “the comingling, improper use, theft, stealing, conversion, embezzlement or misappropriation of funds.”

This exclusion covered crimes committed by the agency, which make sense—a policy should not ordinarily protect the insured from its own bad acts against itself.[3] But what may be surprising is that this exclusion also covered crimes committed by criminals.[4] This effectively means the E&O policy did not cover crimes. So even if the agency only made a mistake (i.e. a negligent error/omission), if a criminal caused that mistake to happen, the insurer won’t pay a dime.[5]

The Takeaway: Regardless of what type of insurance policy you are reviewing (CGL, Computer Fraud, E&O, Cyber, Fraudulent Transfer/Payment), look carefully at each and every criminal exclusion[6] to make certain it only discusses your own criminal acts, not those of others.

Even worse, even Cyber[7] or fraudulent payment insurance might be necessary yet still not sufficient. Let’s travel from New Jersey to Mississippi where a different Federal court addressed a similar scenario, but with different exclusions that illuminate a different type of pitfall.[8]

In this “fake payment instructions” situation, the good news is that the company had a “Social Engineering Fraud” policy that covered this particular type of problem. But it only provided $100,000 of coverage. That’s bad—particularly when the loss was over $1,000,000.

All was not lost, however. There were two additional policies that dealt directly with transfer fraud. But the coverage only kicked in if the transfer was made without the company’s “knowledge or consent.” Here, it was made with knowledge and consent—even though that consent was fraudulently obtained. But the language of the policy was the language of the policy, and the court applied it as written to deny coverage.[9]

This “consent” issue is part of a larger conceptual battle between an internal “hack”[10] and theft of a company’s funds (covered), and an external fraud to induce a voluntary, but wrong, transfer of money to a criminal (not covered).[11]

Under a different scenario, the fraudulent email that triggered a wrong money transfer came from inside the company itself—from its “fake” executive to its accountant.[12] The court concluded that this type of email triggered insurance coverage, even though the fake email was not actually sent to the bank, which the policy seemed to require. That said, this was a close call, and other courts have reached the opposite conclusion.[13] Important here, like the specific “Social Engineering Fraud” coverage in the prior case, this endorsement was designed to deal with this specific type of internally-generated fraud.

The Takeaways: Make sure your coverage limits, if possible, mirror the amounts your agency typically handles in a transaction; receiving too low a payout (10% of the loss) can be the practical equivalent of having no coverage at all. Also, it never hurts (other than paying the premium) to have a special “social engineering” or endorsement that speaks to the exact type of fraud a title agent would most often encounter.

An underlying theme throughout these cases is the issue of causation—i.e. What act led to the loss of money? Was it the fraudulent email? Was it a hack? Was it the duped employee? Most polices use some form of the word “directly” (with or without other words) to indicate the required connection. So, disputes often arise over whether a particular act was the direct/sole/immediate cause of the loss or where there were other acts that were necessary or otherwise more direct/immediate.

The Sixth Circuit (looking at Ohio law)[14] said that a loss is “directly” caused by an act when the loss is “proximately caused” by an act; proximate causation is a commonly used legal phrase. A loss is therefore “proximately caused” when it flows naturally from the fraud. So, a mistaken wire transfer by an employee would flow naturally from a criminal’s email telling that employee to do it. A word of warning: While this case is helpful to insureds, the exact type and language of the policy as well as the factual circumstances of each case makes any blind reliance on this decision unwise at best.[15]

The Takeaway: Keep an eye out for how closely connected a “loss” has to be to the fraud, specifically locating the word “directly” and any modifying words around it. An agent will want to make sure that a fraudulent email to the agent that triggers a wrong payment—the most common scenario—is a “cause” of the loss.

A final thought. A policy can hide lower coverage limits (called a “sublimit”) inside of a larger coverage. This can apply, for example, if an insured does not follow the right security procedures to otherwise entitle it to full coverage.[16] In the context of wire fraud, a policy may drastically reduce its payout to a title agent if the proper verification (usually a “call back”) is not performed.

We hope stories like these serve as a reminder to check your policies for confusing words, gaps in coverage, surprising exclusions, or dollar limits that are out of step with your current business. While title insurance is our friend, don’t let E&O insurance be the enemy.

[1] California is number one by a wide margin, with Florida number two.

[2] Authentic Title Services, Inc. v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 2020 WL 6739880 (D.N.J.).

[3] These are known as “first party” claims.

[4] These are known as “third-party” claims. See c.f. SS&C Technology Holdings, LLC v. AIG Specialty Ins. Co. (2019) (S.D.N.Y.).

[5] See also Res. Real Estate Serv., LLC v. Evanston Ins. Co. (2017) (D.MD.) (the exclusion covered “misappropriation,” “conversion,” and “theft” “irrespective of which individual, party, or organization actually or allegedly committed or caused in whole or part.”).

[6] Each exclusion must be read independent from each other. This means that even if one exclusion properly speaks to your own criminal acts, this does not mean that other exceptions will be read the same way, particularly if the other exclusions are silent on the matter.

[7] Traditionally, “cyber” insurance does not deal with external fraud directed at an employee. Rather, it typically focuses on a direct “hack” of a company’s IT system resulting in the loss of data/confidential information.

[8] Mississippi Silicon Holdings, LLC v. Axis Ins. Co., Case No. 1:18cv231, February 21, 2020

(N.D.Miss.). This decision was recently affirmed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

[9] See also Midlothian Enterprises, Inc. v. Owners Ins. Co. (2020), 439 F.Supp.3d 737 (E.D.Va.) (applying the “voluntary” payment exclusion to deny coverage because it including payment “by any dishonest act.”). Another variation on this theme is an exception based on an “authorized,” but mistaken, employee requesting the wire transfer. See Aqua Star Corp. v. Travelers Casualty Surety Co. of Am. (2018) (9^th Cir.).

[10] See e.g., Apache Corp. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. (2016), 662 Fed.Appx. 252 (5^th Cir.) (finding a fraudulent email was just one step of many that caused the loss and was therefore not the “direct” case under a Computer Fraud policy); The Children’s Place, Inc. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 2019 WL 1857118 (D.N.J.).

[11] See e.g., Schmidt v. The Travelers Indemn. Co. (2015), 101 F.Supp.3d 768 (S.D.Oh.) (law firm); The Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Norfolk Truck Center, Inc. (2019), 430 F.Supp.3d 116 (E.D.Va.) (discussing whether a fraudulent email asking to wire money “directly” caused a loss by using a computer system under a “Computer Fraud” policy); Medidata Solutions, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co. (2017), 268 F.Supp.3d 471 (S.D.N.Y) (same); but see Sanderina, LLC v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 2019 WL 4307854 (D.Nev.) (analyzing a different “Computer Fraud” provision that revolved around whether the criminal got “direct access” to the insured’s computer); Ernst and Haas Mgt. Co. v. Hiscox, Inc., 2020 WL 6789095 (C.D.Cal.); Am. Tooling Center, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. (2018) (6^th Cir.) (interpreting Michigan law).

[12] See e.g., Principle Solutions Group, LLC v. Ironshore Indemnity, Inc. (2019), 944 F.3d 886 (11^th Cir.) (involving the “fraudulent instruction” provision of a commercial crime insurance policy); Retail Ventures, Inc. v. Ntl. Union Fire Ins. Co. (2012), 691 F.3d 821 (6^th Cir.) (interpreting “resulting directly from” to be equivalent to “proximate cause.”).

[13] This fact was fatal to a different case that also had a “directing a financial institution” requirement in its policy. See Sanderina, LLC v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 2019 WL 4307854 (D.Nev.); see also Taylor & Lieberman v. Fed. Inc. Co. (2017), 681 F.Appx. 627 (9^th Cir.); Ernst and Haas Mgt. Co. v. Hiscox, Inc., 2020 WL 6789095 (C.D.Cal.).

[14] Retail Ventures, Inc. v. Ntl. Union Fire Ins. Co. (2012), 691 F.3d 821 (6^th Cir.); see also Am. Tooling Center, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. (2018) (6^th Cir.) (interpreting Michigan law).

[15] See e.g., Apache Corp. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. (2016), 662 Fed.Appx. 252 (5^th Cir.) (finding a fraudulent email was just one step of many that caused the loss and was therefore not the “direct” case under a Computer Fraud policy).

[16] See e.g., The Children’s Place, Inc. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 2019 WL 1857118 (D.N.J.) (“[B]efore forwarding [a] payment order to a financial institution or issuing [a] check, you verified the authenticity and accuracy of the [payment] instruction received ..., including routing numbers and account numbers by calling, at a predetermined telephone number, the [person] who purportedly transmitted the instruction to you.”).

Legislative Update - Feb 2021

Fri, 19 Feb 2021 16:29:01 GMT

By The Batchelder Company

The General Assembly is off to a quick start of the new year, introducing many bills that include priority issues such as school funding (H.B. 1), various bills to repeal nuclear subsidy program (H.B. 6, 132^nd G.A.), and broadband expansion bills in both chambers. Governor DeWine’s administration has also released their outline for FY’s ’22 and ’23 biannual operating budget, which has since been introduced in the House Finance Committee by Chairman Scott Oelslager (R-North Canton). Hearings on the budget bill are expected to continue through February and March with invited testimony from each state agency’s director about their funding requests.

The budget, which sees a 2 percent increase in General Revenue Fund (GRF) spending in FY22 over FY21 and another 3.4 percent increase in FY23 will not have to dip into the state’s rainy-day fund as was anticipated in the midst of last year’s pandemic. That is largely due, according to DeWine, to the influx of federal funds into the state in addition to steps the state took early on which included freezing and cutting spending and then refinancing the state's debt as well as an increase in sales tax revenue. An increase in the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage which supports the Medicaid program also is a major reason for a better than projected fiscal situation according to Office of Budget and Management Director Kim Murnieks. Included in the budget is the $1 billion "Investing in Ohio Initiative" which Gov, DeWine and Lt. Gov. Husted said, "will spur growth and economic renewal across the state." These one-time funds would be used for grants to small businesses hurt by the pandemic, workforce development, infrastructure projects, and addressing the digital divide.

With vaccination efforts in full-swing for frontline workers and the elderly population, Ohio has seen its number of cases of COVID-19 trend downward for several straight weeks. As recently has February 11^th, Gov. DeWine lifted the state’s curfew orders for bars and restaurants. Statewide mandates still in effect include mask-wearing in private retail establishments, a ban on indoor large crowd gatherings, and capacity limits for customers in retail establishments.

On the Land Title front, we have been following the introduction and progress of several bills which OLTA has an interested stake in. Board President, Dione Joseph submitted a letter of support on behalf of OLTA for S.B. 24 (Gavarone and Peterson), which would create a tax credit for new home buyer savings accounts at Ohio financial institutions. Sponsored by fellow title agent Rep. Brett Hillyer, H.B. 53 as introduced would shorten the period of limitations for actions upon a title contract. Lastly, OLTA’s legislative team will be working with the State Bar Association, the Secretary of State’s office, and Sen. Steve Wilson to make updates to Ohio’s E-Notary law. We are also planning to host a virtual legislative Day via Zoom sometime in the Spring. for the purpose of connecting members with their local legislators. We will continue to provide regular updates on these items as our conversations continue and look forward to voicing OLTA’s position as new issues emerge in 2021. As always, it is our honor to work on your behalf in Columbus and please stay safe and healthy as we begin heading into the Spring season.

President Message - Feb 2021

Fri, 19 Feb 2021 16:27:00 GMT

By Dione Joseph, JD, OLTP

The President’s Desk

"Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life." – Confucius

I love what I do! I love working with my work-life team and the OLTA Board. I am constantly energized by my vocation and how I see my role in the process. I believe I help make Ohioans wealthier. Further, I protect our recording records to further transparency and accuracy. The work we all do in the title insurance industry is honorable. The month of February has been busy as the 134^th General Assembly has “turned on the waterfall” of new legislation that focus both on helping Ohioan’s save for home ownership and redact certain groups from the public record.

OLTA sent a letter of support to be submitted at the hearing on February 2^nd for SB 24 First Time Home Buyer Savings Act introduced by Senators Gavarone, and Peterson. The bill creates a capped tax deductible savings account that must be used to save for buying a first home. The bill is written so former homeowners who may have lost their home during the financial crisis would be able to also use this account to save. An account holder can deduct $5k single/$10k joint per year, and there is a lifetime cap of $50k single/$100k joint. The account must be used toward the closings costs of a home within 15 years or pay back taxes and a potential penalty. Currently 13 states have these programs, and more than 15 other states have legislation pending to create them.

OLTA is closely monitoring SB 4 introduced by Senator Roegner. The bill is to amend sections 149.43 and 5913.01 of the Revised Code to include “emergency service telecommunicators” and “certain Ohio National Guard members” as individuals whose residential and familial information is exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Law. Emergency service telecommunicators are defined as individual employed by an emergency service provide receipt or processing of emergency services made by telephone, radio or other electronic means. Certain Ohio National Guard member is defined as those with duties related to remotely piloted aircraft, including but not limited to pilots, sensor operators, and mission intelligence personnel, duties related to special forces operations, or duties related to cybersecurity and is designated by the Adjutant General. The designated class may submit an affidavit to the county auditor requesting the auditor remove the name of the person from any record made available to the public on the Internet or publicly accessible database. The Auditor is to remove the name and replace with the persons initials. Our industry currently interacts with this redaction statute with peace officers. Obviously, our industry wants as few classes within the redaction statue and so OLTA is monitoring this proposed legislation closely.

Unlike SB 4, HB 93 the Safe at Home proposed legislation introduced by Representatives Abrams and LaRe and a slew of co-sponsors is an almost full redaction at the county recorder. The name of the individual will be the only unblocked item. This bill was previously HB 429 at the end of the last general assembly. OLTA fought for the participants name to be viewable in the county recorder records. OLTA also pointed out the 10 day turnaround time for permission was too long and prevents title companies from meeting the board of realtor contract timelines for commitments. The new bill still does not address the 10 day turnaround time conflict and so more work is necessary. The proposed legislation is for a class of protected persons who are victims of violent crimes and are currently in a privacy program of roughly 800+ participants where the Secretary of State collects and distribute participants’ personal mail. This legislation is to provide those who own homes in the program a means of doing so confidentially without the additional cost of creating a trust or LLC.

The program participant must file a real property confidentiality notice to the recorder where the real property is located. The county recorder transmits the redaction request to the auditor, treasurer, engineer and clerk of common pleas. Title examiners have to apply with the Secretary of State’s office for permission which can take up to 10 days. The Secretary of State has to contact the participant to get a notarized statement of release. When making the application the examiner needs the name, address of the property, legal description and a statement the applicant will treat the information as confidential. Once the participant sells the property the records become viewable. Real estate agents are also covered in the bill to keep all information relating to the program participant confidential. A title company would not be able to share any information regarding a program participant as well without consent. This standard of privacy protection is higher than the standard for Nonpublic information.

OLTA could not keep track for its members the deluge of legislation that needs to be vetted without the great work by the Governmental Affairs Committee and its chair Elizabeth Berg. The review and input on proposed legislation by those of you on the Governmental Affairs Committee helps OLTA get comments back to our lobbyist in a timely manner and determine strategy. As John Heywood reminds us, “Many hands make light work.”

For 2021, OLTAPAC has a goal of raising $20,000.00. As of writing this article OLTAPAC has raised $6,500.00. Please help us keep the momentum going to hit this very realistic goal. OLTAPAC is the reason OLTA member concerns are at the interested persons meetings for proposed legislation I have discussed and for those yet to come. I thank all of you who have generously given so far to help us meet our goal. If you have never contributed before please consider doing so this year and help make a political difference that impacts your vocation.

President Message

Mon, 26 Feb 2018 19:52:08 GMT

President’s Message By Russell J. Kutell, Esq.

So Much to Do! What Should I Do? Everything!

With the melting of the snow (hopefully) and the rising sun of the Spring, what better thing to do than become/remain actively involved in the Association! In the next two months, the Association will be conducting two of the three largest events of the year.

On Wednesday, March 7, 2018, the Association will be conducting its fourth annual Legislative Day beginning with breakfast and speakers at the Columbus Athletic Club. This is an awesome event in which you get to hear from legislators concerning issues interesting you and others in our industry. You also will get to meet with your own state representatives and senators. Is this the reason you have not participated before? Are you concerned that you have never done something like this before? If so, you are not alone. I felt the same way the first year that I participated. However, Mark Bennett and our government affairs consultants quickly make you feel at ease in participating.

As soon as you arrive at the Athletic Club, you will receive a fact sheet, among other materials. This fact sheet is to be given to your local legislators and contains the issues currently impacting our industry and what the Association would like for you to discuss with your legislator so he or she will act upon our requests. Armed with this one-page fact sheet and discussions from Mark and the government affairs consultant, you will be well prepared to briefly discuss these issues with your legislators and then report back to the Association at the end of Legislative Day as to any feedback you received from the legislators. It truly is amazing to feel you have been a part of potentially shaping legislation that could permanently impact the industry. Hopefully you can and will participate!

A month after Legislative Day, the Association will be having its Spring Seminar at the Columbus Airport Embassy Suites beginning with a networking reception with cocktails and heavy hors d’oeuvres on Monday, April 9 at the Center of Science and Industry (COSI) in Downtown Columbus (shuttles will be provided from the hotel to COSI). The Spring Seminar itself will occur throughout the day on Tuesday, April 10. Monica Russell and the whole Education Committee have done a phenomenal job of creating an agenda of hot topics impacting the title industry. Attend the seminar and listen to speakers discuss issues concerning cyberfraud and how to react to instances of cyberfraud, as well as title issues involving foreclosures and bankruptcies, and the always popular case law and legislative update. An hour of ethics credit will also be provided for a panel discussion on title agent defalcations and bad act ethical concerns. Hear a report of the Association on recent and future Association initiatives as well. This Spring Seminar is sure to be a popular event! I hope to see you there!

Title Agents are Lawyers, Right?

Fri, 30 Mar 2018 16:47:06 GMT

Title Agents are Lawyers, Right?
Jonathan Holfinger, Esq., OLTP
C.O.O., Northwest Title Principal, The Holfinger Stevenson Law Firm

One of the things I’ve learned in my 15 years in the title industry is that very few people outside our industry understand what we do. And that isn’t just consumers, I’m talking about real estate professionals, lenders and government regulators as well. So naturally then, it would be difficult for all the parties typically involved in real estate transactions to even be able to articulate the reasons why some title agents are lawyers and some are not. Or why in some states, handling escrow and settlement is the practice of law, and in other states like Ohio, it is not. In fact, I have learned that almost none of the title industry workforce that we’ve hired over the years can explain the reasons for that reality. It just is. And that’s not an insult to those of us in the industry, but rather the result of several factors at play, which we could breakdown, but that would deserve its own article.

Over the last couple of years, the ALTA and the CFPB have highlighted the need for the title industry to be transparent, the need for consumers to better understand their financial transactions, and the need to try to market our services directly to consumer. In light of the fact, I think it’s worth discussing what is realistic in the marketplace, and that not all marketplaces are the same. I think we can all concede that a refinance transaction of a suburban home in a platted subdivision is a fairly straightforward title and closing transaction. And perhaps the regulators, the public, and the industry as a whole can talk about those types of straightforward transactions, because they’re easier to understand and conceptualize. So, when ‘they’ are talking about consumers shopping for title services, or predictable fees, and the like, the conversation is about most of the transactions across the country that fall into the bucket of easily definable title and escrow transactions. So be it. But what about all the other “stuff” we deal with? What about small town or rural transactions, with lot splits, private roads serving as multi-property driveways, mobile home conversions, attorney opinion letters (aka certificates of title), CAUV tax recoupments, and those sorts of things?

Well, it’s with those transactions that we have the most interesting work, and the most interesting problems. It’s with those transactions that we are put to the test, and our customers are often looking to us to provide them answers and fix their problems. They don’t know the difference between a title agent who is a lawyer and one who is not. They may know that a title agent handles the ownership part and the paperwork, but that’s about it. They just want to get to closing, and when the title agent says there is a title problem, the parties assume the title agent should fix it too.

I don’t blame them. It makes perfect sense… in fact, I think about it when I see those commercials for Identity fraud companies that mock credit monitoring services. They use a “dental monitor” or a “security monitor” as a funny example to make their point that they actually fix things, because what good are you if all you do is point out the problem? You must fix it if you’re to have any value to the consumer.

That’s where this really begins, and the fog of the ‘gray area’ comes in and makes it challenging for even seasoned practitioners to be able to follow the standards and policies passed down within both the legal profession and the title insurance industry. We, in the industry, know that we’re insurance agents, and therefore we can tell them what we can and can’t insure, and what might need to happen for us to insure it, but do you think consumers understand that? My experience says they don’t.

And so, what do you do when you find a title problem, and then the parties want you to explain it to them and fix it so they can close their transaction, but their interests are in conflict? And the Buyer (or their real estate professional) asks you what rights she/he has under their contract? And then later the Seller asks you the same question? This sort of thing happens quite frequently, and so what should we do?

Well for those title agents that are lawyers, you all know that we have rules about client representation, conflicts of interest, disclosure of financial interests, and the like. It can be confusing to us, and confusing to our staff, about how to handle those questions. The public (and real estate professionals for that matter) view us all as one entity, there to solve their problems and get the deal closed. Let’s look at a real situation that I encountered recently to illustrate the challenges we face, how lines are blurred and it doesn’t all happen the way we would want to draw it up. Of course, the names are changed to protect the innocent….

Suzy Seller and Bob Buyer get into contract to sell/buy Lot 29 in an old (smallish) city. Both are represented by Agents. Bob is getting a loan from Larry Lender. Lender does want a loan policy. Contract does not specify whether an owners title policy is to be issued. Title work is commenced and nothing pertinent to this illustration is discovered, so the file moves forward towards closing. Lender wants survey exception removed, so location survey is obtained. On the survey, surveyor makes a notation that a 20’ wide strip of land adjacent to our Lot 29 does not have a tax parcel # and is of unknown origin. The house nearly encroaches onto that strip, and the shed in the back does encroach. Our staff’s further questioning of this notation on the survey results in the educated guess that this strip of land is the side yard of Lot 29, and that the city lot has been in existence for around 100 years.

Since we couldn’t move forward without figuring out if we missed something in our title exam, we sent our searcher back to the courthouse, because records in that County are not online. We searched back past the marketable title requirements, and found deeds in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s that led to a dead end. It appears that the 20’ foot strip was never properly created when the lots were platted. It hasn’t been taxed, nor has it ever been officially owned (in the County’s records). Seems to be a remnant of clerical errors decades ago.

So now we know that as a title insurance agent, we cannot insure this 20’ strip of land without a court order, or quitclaim deeds from every heir of the last known owner of the land. But what do we do with this information? Whom do we tell first?

As you might suspect, we needed to verify that the contract required the seller to convey marketable title, and no title insurance is required. So even though owner’s title insurance isn’t an issue, a loan policy is desired, and so we needed to figure out whether we could issue a loan policy on Lot 29 and not the 20’ strip of land and effectively leave the problem piece out of it. Well, the contract only says Lot 29 is to be conveyed, so in reality, they never contracted to convey this 20’ strip of land. But was it the intent of the parties to only convey the lot and they had no expectation of that “side lot” being conveyed? What if the Seller and Buyer disagree about that? The only way to know is to call them. Who do we call first, Seller or Buyer? And do we have to call their real estate professionals first? Do we need to say anything to the lender yet? Maybe Seller knows something, and since they have the contractual duty to convey marketable title, we better start there. And as a courtesy we let Agent know we needed to discuss the title problem with Seller. Ignoring the questions from Agent for the sake of this illustration, we call Seller and ask about if she thinks she owns the 20’ strip adjacent to the house. Of course, she says yes. We ask if she intended to convey it to Buyer, and again the answer is yes. And then we explained the missing history of that piece of land, that brought a run of Seller’s questions: why did this happen? Why is it a problem? Who’s going to fix it? Are you telling me I can’t close next week? Why can’t I just deed it to Buyer, I thought he didn’t want title insurance anyways?

All that leads to the question of if we are practicing law by answering their questions. Do we have to turn away and tell them we can’t answer those questions unless they retain us as counsel? They’ll never want to do business with us if we act like we cannot help them. So naturally, as problem-solving lawyers, we jump in and do our best to field the questions with the caveat of “I’m not acting as your lawyer, but this is what it looks like the situation is… and you’ll likely need to hire us as your lawyer or hire an outside lawyer to fix the problem and get it back on track so our title agency can insure and close it.” And the inevitable questions come next: how much do you charge? How long will it take? Am I in breach of contract? Can the buyer walk away? …etc, etc.

We do our best to answer these questions and explain how it all works, and how Seller will have to hire us as her lawyer to file a quiet title action (which was determined to be the best course of action by us). Naturally Seller and Agent are frustrated and wondering why this is happening and why we can’t just fix it. The underlying assumption is that we are a title company, so why can’t we handle this without having to officially hire a lawyer to fix it. There is much confusion, and some frustrating conversations to try and get everyone calmed down so that we can ultimately fix the problem and move forward.

During the process, while wearing our lawyer hats, we couldn’t help but think about the fact that there are some legal issues with contract interpretation, mutual mistake of fact, or otherwise, and we notified the parties they should hire counsel. Buyer was threatening to walk-away, and that might be a breach, but our hands are tied to advise either of them what they should or shouldn’t do in that regard, even though we had opinions on what they should do. And without taking either side, we informed both that they still could move forward to closing, IF Seller did a Quitclaim Deed on the 20’ strip, because we could insure the shed encroachment and issue a loan policy (and even an owner’s policy if Buyer wanted) on Lot 29, and then Buyer would still be able to exert ownership over the 20’ wide strip the same as he was planning on doing before with Lot 29 (because he originally didn’t want an owners title insurance policy). We didn’t believe anyone will challenge his ownership of that side yard to the house. After we explained the situation (wearing our lawyer hats but not his lawyer), he didn’t want to pay for a lawyer to get independent counsel, but didn’t want to move forward and take the quitclaim deed either. On top of that, he changed his mind to want owner’s title insurance on everything… which was a classic example of a buyer getting freaked out once they learn about what title problems can rear their ugly heads.

So, at the end of the day, we spent hours talking with all the parties about how the title problem came to be, as well as assuring them it can be solved, as well as urging them to hire counsel, but at the same time giving free legal opinions about their options in response to their pointed questions. The parties assumed that the title agent’s job was to explain the situation to them. They assumed because we also have a law firm, and have lawyers on staff, that our lawyers are there to guide them to a resolution. The consumers and agents didn’t understand the potential conflict of interest in advising the seller against the interests of the buyer, or vice versa. Ultimately the seller elected to hire our firm to try and clear her marketable title problems, but buyer has now moved on from the transaction, and when we clear up the title issue with a court order, we will be back to the beginning of finding a buyer for her house. No commissions have been paid. No title premiums have been paid. No processing fees have been paid. Lots of work has been done. The parties are still frustrated.

I don’t tell you this story to tie it up in a nice, neat bow at the end. Many transactions don’t work out in the end. Many people have bad experiences with title companies because we are the messengers of problems, and we must juggle fiduciary duties between all the parties, including our own title underwriter. We are often thrown into difficult situations and expected to provide legal services for free. I’m not saying that we can avoid this. But what I am saying is that it is in our best interest to try to educate real estate professionals and lenders about our role in the transaction, both the value we bring to the table, and the legal limits of the title agent’s functions. We should acknowledge how complicated and nuanced some title transactions can be, and therefore we shouldn’t just lump all residential title transactions into a labeled box, because they aren’t all the same. Many residential real estate transactions definitively warrant the parties to have experienced legal counsel at the outset of the transaction. In those situations, that would help to minimize mistakes and potential problems that ultimately leave everyone frustrated with the title company, and lead to consumers and realtors alike playing the blame game and saying negative things that diminish our industry’s value proposition as a whole.

Board Walk Article

Mon, 26 Feb 2018 19:59:38 GMT

February 2018 Title Topics
Board Walk Article
by Jeffrey Gammell, OLTP

The Ohio Land Title Association has become an integral part of our industry. The work that it does in education, legislation, government affairs and being an industry advocate to the public is more valuable than can be imagined. Having the opportunity to serve the organization is both rewarding and a true honor.

In particular, I have had the opportunity to work on the legislative side of the Association at the State level. The OLTA has become a visible and active proponent of legislation related to our industry, striving to help our industry better serve the public. There are several bills in which the OLTA has been either monitoring or actively involved in pushing for passage.

Presently, one of the most important of these is House Bill 407 which proposes to repeal dower. I had the opportunity to attend a House of Representatives Civil Justice Committee Hearing where the bill was introduced. This was a proponent’s hearing in support of the proposed legislation. I witnessed members of our organization including, Chip Brigham and Kevin Eichner, testify on behalf of the title industry. This was a great opportunity for the Association to be a leader in the State and address an issue which has been an ongoing challenge for both our industry and the consumer. Both Chip and Kevin did a fantastic job. A week later an opponent’s hearing was held in the Committee with no objections being made to the Bill. This Bill is presently in the Rules Committee to hopefully be sent to the House Floor. We will be watching closely with the further hopes that the Bill will be passed in the House, go on to the Senate and eventually be signed by the governor, and become law.

Other areas which the OLTA has presently been either involved in or has been monitoring include proposed legislation which would create predictable (flat fee based) recording fees; House Bill 412 which is proposed to put a system in place to provide an opportunity to redact discriminatory covenants from real property instruments displayed on the Internet, or to record modifications of those instruments in the public records of Ohio; and legislation was passed and then (for a number of reasons) repealed which would have established electronic notarization in Ohio. New legislation related to electronic notarization is in the process of being drafted and is expected to be presented in bill form over the next few months. The Association will continue to push to help assure that these bills and resulting legislation keep our industry and the interests of the consumer in mind.

Being on the Board and working in the area of new legislation has been very educational, challenging, rewarding and quite honestly just a lot of fun.

I encourage anyone who is interested in getting involved in the OLTA and legislation to do so. A great place to start is attending OLTA Legislative Day on March 7. You won’t be disappointed.

The Current Status of Electronic Notarization

Mon, 26 Feb 2018 20:08:11 GMT

BACK TO THE FUTURE
The Current Status of Electronic Notarization
by Frank Long

One certainty in today’s cyber era is that technological advancements always outpace the law. Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than in the recent push for electronic notarization (aka eNotarization or eNotary). You all know the scenario: Just prior to closing a customer informs you that she will be out of state, or out of country, on the day of closing and wants to arrange signing via Skype or some other electronic means. Traditionally this situation would be handled via a power of attorney and the closing agent would usually have had advance notice. In today’s mobile society consumers increasingly assume closing agents have the means to close electronically and are perplexed to learn otherwise, causing them to do some last-minute scrambling in order to accommodate the closer. Electronic notarization is a way for notaries to sign and acknowledge electronic documents. It is essentially the same process as the notary signing a paper document, except the notary uses a digital signature and digital notary seal to notarize digital documents and validate with a digital certificate.

An online eNotarization takes the process a step further by using technology to expand the definition of “acknowledged before me” or “in the presence of” to allow notaries to remotely notarize documents by real-time, two-way video such as Skype. A signer could be located anywhere in the world and appear before the online eNotary. The advantages are obvious. Today, title companies use mobile notaries and mail-away closing packages every day. And let’s face it, we really don’t know what happens during the signing in these transactions. We lose the touchpoint with the consumer and control of the closing process, both of which sometimes lead to claims against our title insurance policies. Online eNotarization allows the title company to maintain the relationship and continue to be the touchpoint with the consumer. For example, a US citizen traveling abroad may no longer need to find a US embassy or consulate or wait for an Apostille. Instead, the title company would be able to handle the signing and explanation of documents maintaining control of the situation. This results in a better experience for the buyer, seller and their realtors. Also, because the process is automated, it limits the number of mistakes resulting from missing signatures and missing pages in documents.

Multiple vendors are now offering services and platforms for closing agents which vary in sophistication from a security standpoint. And currently approximately 29 states permit some form of eNotary and/or online notarization, not all of which are statutory. Some are good, others not so much. When conducted properly there are actually more protections online due to the recording of the entire remote session which does not occur in a mobile notary or mail-away closing. With the clear identification of the borrower and a full audio/video recording of the properly vetted and secured signing process, we are in a better position to limit mistakes and fraud and to defend against claims.

Enter the curious case of Ohio’s eNotary statute, found in Chapter 147 of the Revised Code. Historically the words “acknowledged before me” in the statute were defined in Sec. 147.541 as the person acknowledging appeared before the person taking the acknowledgment; and that the person acknowledging acknowledged executing the instrument. The historic definition was expanded last year by the passage of Ohio House Bill 49, which was the behemoth 2000+ page biennial budget bill mandated by the state constitution. Effective September 29, 2017, buried within this bill was language added late in the legislative process that redefined “acknowledged before me” to include “by visually appearing through the use of any electronic communications devises approved by the secretary of state”, and acknowledging “through the use of an electronic signature from technology approved by the secretary of state.” Rumors abound regarding the source of this revision and who was behind it, but suffice it to say that it caught interested parties off-guard, including the title industry, a group of stakeholders and legislators that had been working on their own notary reform bill, and the secretary of state who was charged with promulgating the rules to implement it. There was no vetting of this language via the legislative process that would ordinarily predate passage of important legislation such as this, leaving much head scratching regarding its implementation. The language was woefully “thin.” Despite the challenges the Secretary of State, to its credit, took the matter to task and managed to promulgate rules for the law’s implementation. Regardless the law was too flawed given its insufficient language and lack of vetting, and title underwriters, for the most part, were loath to insure transactions that closed pursuant to its mandates. It was a boondoggle for sure.

Recognizing this, shortly after HB 49 become law an effort to repeal it was introduced in the form of Ohio House Bill 31. HB 31 was signed by Governor Kasich on November 21, 2017 meaning Ohio’s eNotarization law will be repealed effective February 20, 2018. The hastily enacted HB 49 survived but a few short months, a good reminder that the legislative process, while slow and oftentimes frustrating, does exist for a legitimate purpose. In the meantime and as previously mentioned, the effort to modernize Ohio’s notary laws that had been in progress prior to passage of the ill-fated HB 49 continues. Spearheaded by Senators Matt Huffman and Steve Wilson, the two lawmakers have convened a working group for purpose of studying the eNotary issue and ultimately sponsoring legislation that is workable for all interested parties.

And they have a good body of law and other materials to use for reference. Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Virginia, Washington, Texas and Nevada each currently have laws that appear to be working. The Texas and Virginia laws seem to be of particular interest (Note: Virginia was the first state to enact such legislation in 2012). The rules promulgated by the Ohio Secretary of State for HB 49 borrowed from Texas and Nevada regarding identification standards, and followed Virginia, Montana, Texas and Nevada regarding maintaining an electronic journal including a video of the remote notary session. As well, the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) and the American Land Title Association (ALTA) are now collaborating on model legislation that would provide a framework for states to work from or adopt as their own legislation. Countless individuals have put many hours into this effort. Numerous other organizations have voiced support for remote notarization, and in some cases have published standards and information, including the National Notary Association (NNA), National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), Electronic Signatures and Records Association (ESRA), and the Public Records Industry Association (PRIA).

Digital technology is certainly here to stay. It has already changed the closing landscape and will continue to do so as technology evolves. The public is ready and wants and expects it, particularly millennials and undoubtedly subsequent generations. Numerous platforms exist to accommodate and
facilitate the process, others are in the works and there will be more to follow. Heavy hitters such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Quicken Loans are on board. State legislatures are waking up and stepping up, recognizing they need to keep pace with technology. But there are complicated issues that need to be addressed, particularly when reconciling conflicting and evolving laws among various states and interstate recognition. Reciprocity statutes may need to be revised. Title standards may need to be created. There are very real concerns that the process is subject to the bankruptcy trustee’s power to avoid an improperly acknowledged mortgage, or that desperate borrowers who are in default will find ways to challenge the process in order to thwart foreclosure. While we don’t yet know what Ohio’s legislation will look like, smart and talented people representing various interests and disciplines are studying this at length and it is commonly believed that we will see legislation introduced to the General Assembly sometime this year. And if I were inclined to bet, my wager would be that legislation will become law this year too.

Legislative Update

Mon, 26 Feb 2018 20:11:37 GMT

Legislative Update
by Chad Hawley

The Batchelder Company

February in the Statehouse was very active in both the Ohio House and Senate with a mixture of all policy topics being discussed, debated and voted on. Leadership in both chambers are tackling issues ranging from congressional redistricting to the ongoing opioid epidemic crises plaguing our state. With just a few months remaining before legislative summer recess and the upcoming elections, industries, associations and other outside stakeholders with interests in current legislation are vying for legislator’s attention to pass their bills prior to the scheduled break.

With that said, we want to encourage all members within the OLTA to sign up, attend and participate in OLTA “Legislative Day” that will be held on Wednesday, March 7 in Columbus. This is your opportunity for the title industry’s “voice” to be heard from you the expert directly to the policy maker.

There are several important topics of interest you can further educate legislator’s, including House Bill 407. This legislation aims to abolish the estate by dower. After receiving three hearings in the Ohio House Civil Justice Committee, HB 407 was favorably reported by a majority of the committee members. OLTA provided proponent testimony during the committee hearings prior to its passage. The bill now awaits a vote before the full House and if passed would then move to the Senate for future committee hearings and potential floor vote.

In addition to House Bill 407 we continue to monitor House Bill 412. This bill authorizes county recorders, at the request of certain persons, to redact discriminatory covenants from real property instruments displayed on the internet, or to record modifications of those instruments. Introduced late last year, HB 412 has had only sponsor testimony to date and is currently pending in the House Civil Justice Committee where it awaits potential future hearings.

Lastly, e-notarization has been a hot topic within the legislature over the past year. The last several months, OLTA has been actively participating in stakeholder discussions on possible e-notary legislation. Members of the Ohio Senate have been leading those discussions and after many meetings and hours of feedback from all involved, it now appears a bill to allow enotarization will be introduced in the very near future. Should a bill be introduced, it will be sent to a Senate committee to start the committee hearing process. We will continue to be involved in all hearings and discussions that take place after introduction.

As always, you can find additional information on the bills mentioned above, along with all other pending legislation within the Ohio Legislature and more background on your elected officials at www.legislature.ohio.gov. We hope to see you next month for “Legislative Day”, it will surely be a full-packed day of important meetings, guest speakers and a chance to witness Ohio’s State Government in action!

How to Attract and Retain Employees

Mon, 26 Feb 2018 20:25:26 GMT

How to Attract and Retain Employees
by Tom Fiegl, OLTA Publications Chairperson

Recently, I had a conversation with the director of recruiting for a Cleveland, Ohio, based employment recruiting firm, specializing nationally in the title and financial services arenas. We agreed that one of the challenges that title companies face is the aging population of the employees in the title industry. Those veteran title and escrow professionals are approaching retirement age and the void they will leave is a growing concern among agency managers. All of that begs the question: how can title agencies attract and retain new talent? The recruiter shared several points that his firm has found impactful.

Who is the target candidate? The recruiter said the ideal candidate is gainfully employed, not presently searching for a new position but open to a discussion about a new job. The candidate should have a steady employment history. , someone who has not changed jobs frequently typically tends to approach job duties with a sense of commitment and ownership. Often, those candidates are more deliberate in their decision making process.

Company culture is a big factor in attracting new talent. Is the environment of your agency positive, encouraging and nurturing? There is a saying that employees companies, they leave bad bosses. Is the staff reflective of the manager, either positively or negatively? Is the compensation competitive and commensurate with experience? Is there a willingness to train both current employees and new team members? The recruiter says that in this economic climate, candidates rate these very highly on their list of reasons to make a move.

Technology plays a significant role in attracting the right candidate. With technology burgeoning in our industry, people want to work smarter, not harder. Does your agency keep up with those advances or is it slow to embrace change? The key is to make the tasks of employees as efficient as possible. We know there are times when long hours are the rule, but finding ways to cut down on those long nights or weekends can be enticing. Paperless offices, eclosings and e-recordings are no longer things of the future.

As an adjunct to technology, is there a possibility for employees to work offsite? Millennials value time and how they are using it. If they don't have to commute to the an office, they can save time. Properly equipped, employees in some roles, performing certain duties, can be as productive if not more productive working offsite than those in an office setting.

Related industries often are a good source of new employees. The recruiter has seen candidates from the legal, banking, mortgage lending and paralegal sectors find success in the title and escrow industry. The agency must be committed to a comprehensive training program for new employees who change sectors, because our industry is specialized.

The recruiter has found that, based on the level of activity in their businesses, both agency and underwriting management teams are looking ahead and considering a very broad range of factors in order to attract the next generation of employees, who eventually will become the leaders in our business. Armed with this information, those decision makers can not only focus on finding the right talent to fit their business today, but being prepared with strategies that can help retain those employees well into the future.

CareWorks Article

Mon, 26 Feb 2018 21:52:12 GMT

CareWorks Article
by Cordell Walton

Potential Changes to Remaining 2017 BWC Premium Installments: A number of employers’ BWC premium installment invoices were recently adjusted by the BWC. The adjustment increased the remaining installment payments for the current July 1, 2017 rate year. The reason being that when BWC initially calculated the July 1, 2017 rate year premium installments, they were based on the D M M M. Recently, the BWC compared the D M M M with the actual M M M (which was reported in the August 2017 True Up.) If there was a large increase in the M, the BWC adjusted the remaining installments for the current July 1, 2017 rate year. The BWC’s goal is to deter employers from having a large True Up at the end of the current rate year. In the last few days, BWC has sent letters to those impacted employers, explaining the change to the remaining premium installment payments.

CareWorksComp Seminars: Please mark your calendar to attend one of our half-day workers’ comp seminars this April. We will be presenting our Cost Control Seminars around the state:

April 17, 2018 – Columbus  April 18, 2018 – Cleveland  April 26, 2018 – Cincinnati

Please see the MMO M for additional details and to register to attend. As always, attendance at the seminars will fulfill the BWC Two-Hour Group Safety Training Requirement.

BWC’s Ohio Safety Congress & Expo: The BWC Safety Congress & Expo takes place in less than a month, March 7-9, at the Greater Columbus Convention Center. There will be a Products and Services Marketplace, many educational sessions and lectures, which are all free of charge and are a terrific way to learn what’s new in the world of safety. If you’d like to register, it’s not too late! You may do so at https://bwc.expoplanner.com/content/osc18/Register/. You’ll need your BWC policy number handy when you do. (If you need assistance registering you may also call 614.466.7695.)

Please stop by to visit CareWorksComp in booth #208 and RiskControl360° in booth #108!

Additional 2-Hour Training Options:

CareWorksComp is offering Two additional training sessions to fulfill the BWC Two-Hour Group Safety Training Requirement. The registration material is attached with this email, and these will be hosted in Bowling Green on 3/13/18, and Dublin on 6/5/18.

Posting Requirements for OSHA: OSHA reminds employers of their obligation to post a copy of OSHA’s Form 300A, which summarizes job-related injuries and illnesses logged during 2017. Each year, between February 1 and April 30, the summary must be displayed in a common area where notices to employees are usually posted. Businesses with ten or fewer employees and those in certain low-hazard industries are exempt from OSHA recordkeeping and posting requirements. Visit OSHA's Recordkeeping Rule webpage for more information on recordkeeping requirements.