Ohio House Bill 479 – – commonly known as the Ohio Asset Management Modernization Act (OAMMA) will affect a variety of asset protection strategies in Ohio. The new law was signed by Ohio’s Governor on December 20, 2012 and will become effective in March of 2013.
House Bill 479 authorizes legacy trusts in Ohio.
Ohio does not currently allow you to set up a Domestic Asset Protection Trust to protect your own assets. But you can set up a trust that protects assets that you leave to a beneficiary other than yourself. This kind of trust is commonly referred to as a “spendthrift trust”. Many trusts that are
Last month, the Ohio House of Representatives passed House Bill 479, which I have discussed in posts on May 1, 2012 and May 23, 2012.
If the Ohio Senate goes along with the House, there will be a new Section 5816 of the Ohio Revised Code that provides for the Ohio Legacy Trust Act.
In my post of May 1, 2012, I reported that there was pending legislation in Ohio (House Bill 479) that would essentially provide an unlimited homestead exemption, similar to that in Florida, Texas and several other states.
On May 22, 2012 the Ohio House of Representatives passed House Bill 479, but it had significant
Asset protection statutes and case law vary significantly from state to state.
Ohio House Bill 479 — commonly known as the Ohio Asset Management Modernization Act (OAMMA) –would make Ohio a leading asset protection jurisdiction. The proposed legislation would:
Following up on my post of April 13, 2012 —
Ohio House Bill 48 (which becomes effective on May 4, 2012) makes important changes to Sections 1705.18 and 1705.19 of the Ohio Revised Code. A new Section 1705.19(C) provides:
No creditor of a member of a limited liability company or any member’s assignee shall have
Ohio House Bill 48 (signed by Governer Kasich on February 2, 2012) makes some significant changes to Ohio’s LLC law. The new legislation (which becomes effective on May 4, 2012) affects Sections 1705.18 and 1705.19 of the Ohio Revised Code.
The new legislation clarifies that a charging order is the sole and exclusive remedy for
The Ohio Court of Appeals (10th District, Franklin County) recently provided some very specific guidance about "piercing the corproate veil" in Ohio. The case is Lind Stoneworks, Ltd. v. Top Surface, Inc., 194 Ohio App.3d 98 (10th District 2011).
The trial court held a corporation and its sole owner liable for a corporate debt.
A federal judge in Cleveland, Ohio recently ordered a convicted public official to pay $57,000 in damages by taking those funds from his retirement account. An Ohio law passed several years ago specifically authorizes such an action if a public official has been convicted of certain crimes, including bribery. The decision by U.S. District Judge
