coronavirus | Fraser Blog

Michigan Supreme Court finds Statutory Basis of Executive Orders Unconstitutional: Next Steps Uncertain

UPDATE (10/13): On Monday, October 12, 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court issued an Order in Michigan House of Representative and Senate v Governor, reversing the lower Court of Appeal decision in that case which upheld the Governor’s source of emergency authority. The Supreme Court took this action on Monday in light of. and consistent with, its recent decision on the same questions on October 2nd involving certified questions for the US District Court. The Supreme Court’s October 12 Order has been given immediate effect, putting to rest any question regarding the timing of its ruling and or binding effect. You can read that Order here.

Late on Friday, October 2, 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the Governor’s use of the Emergency Powers of the Governor Act and the Emergency Management Act as two sources of authority to issue a host of executive orders regulating capacity limits in public-facing businesses, public mask use, school re-openings, the size of public and private gatherings, among others was unconstitutional. In the wake of the Court’s ruling, uncertainty abounds regarding the legal effect and enforceability of the Governor’s numerous executive orders issued to date. Although the Attorney General announced Sunday that she will not enforce the Governor’s COVID-19 executive orders, this does not mean all COVID-19 related rules and regulations are invalid or not without practical merit. Further, both state and local health agencies have quickly moved to fill the regulatory void left as a result of the Court’s ruling.

This controversy started towards the end of April, when the state legislature moved forward with a bill aimed at preventing the Governor from renewing her original state of emergency declaration. The Governor, relying on the 1945 emergency powers law, issued an executive order to keep a stay-at-home order in place through June 1 without consent of the Legislature. This law has been the legal basis for continued rolling orders that have kept some public-facing businesses such as bowling alleys and movie theaters shuttered until Oct. 9. There have been a number of lower state court cases challenging the Governor’s action, all of which have sided in her favor.

One particular lawsuit was brought in federal district court by three medical groups in West Michigan. The three medical groups sued the Governor, challenging her spring executive order that prohibited doctors and medical facilities from performing “elective” procedures in an effort to preserve personal protection equipment when it was in short supply during the early days of the pandemic.

The Michigan Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on interpreting state law, and the federal district court judge noted that state law questions regarding the limit of the Governor’s authority were crucial to the case before it. The law permits federal courts to ask for guidance – called a certified question — on state law questions from a state’s highest court. State supreme courts are not required to accept certified questions from a federal court but they usually do.

Here the Federal court certified two questions to the Michigan Supreme Court:

Whether, under the Emergency Powers of the Governor Act, MCL § 10.31, et seq. [(the “1945 law”)], or the Emergency Management Act, MCL § 30.401, et seq. [(the “1976 law”)], [the] Governor has the authority after April 30, 2020 to issue or renew any executive orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic; and
Whether the [1945 law] and/or the [1976 law] violates the Separation of Powers and/or the Non-Delegation Clauses of the Michigan Constitution.

In answering these questions, the Michigan Supreme Court stated:

“[w]e conclude that the Governor lacked the authority to declare a ‘state of emergency’ or a ‘state of disaster’ under the EMA after April 30, 2020, on the basis of the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, we conclude that the EPGA is in violation of the Constitution of our state because it purports to delegate to the executive branch the legislative powers of state government— including its plenary police powers— and to allow the exercise of such powers indefinitely.”

Friday’s ruling throws into doubt the Governor’s many executive orders addressing a variety of issues in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Michigan. For example, orders that expand unemployment eligibility during a pandemic, that allow local governments to hold their meetings virtually to avoid in-person meetings that could allow the virus to spread, that place moratoriums on foreclosures and evictions, and those that permit remote witnessing and notarization of legal documents, are all somewhat in question.

Additional uncertainly surrounds the effective date of the Court’s order and if it is even entitled to binding effect, as it was issued in response to a certified question from the Federal District Court and therefore merely “advisory” in nature. For the most part, these questions have answered (1) the order was effective on October 2^nd, and (2) there is a clear likelihood that the Court’s decision will be followed in any subsequent state or federal court decisions.

State regulators are nevertheless holding fast. The Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA) has issued thousands of dollars in citations to Michigan businesses for failing to implement COVID-19 precautions under the agency’s “general duty clause,” which requires employers to provide workspaces free of hazards causing death or “serious harm.” Since the Supreme Court decision Friday, many have questioned the validity of the citations, arguing that violations of the general duty clause were based on non-compliance with the Governor’s executive orders on mask usage, social distancing, or employee training. State regulators have said that they will not rescind any fines and penalties for workplace COVID-19 non-compliance, even in light of a Michigan Supreme Court decision upending the Governor’s executive orders back to April 30.

Further, the Director of the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, citing authority under the Michigan Public Health Code, quickly issued an emergency order reinstating requirements that masks should be worn at most indoor and outdoor gatherings and events, limiting attendance at indoor and outdoor gatherings, limiting organized sports and other limitations on certain food service establishments, including bars. The order specifies that violations are a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or a fine of not more than $200, or both.

Local health departments are issuing similar orders. The Oakland County Health Department on Saturday ordered residents of Michigan’s second-most populous county to wear masks or facial coverings when leaving their homes. More orders will follow to outline capacity limits for bars and restaurants and instill public health screenings, the department said. Ingham County followed suit Sunday by issuing emergency orders similar to Oakland’s, with rules requiring face masks, limiting restaurant capacity to 50%, mandating employee health screenings and putting restrictions on indoor and outdoor gatherings. Other local action is anticipated in Kent, Ottawa, St. Clair, and Wayne.

It will take a while for the Legislature and Governor to sort out these issues legislatively as there are only 3 session days left before the November 3 election and only 14 session days after the election. In the meantime, the Administration will pursue reissuing some of these orders through administrative rules and regulatory action.

We have created a response team to the rapidly changing COVID-19 situation and the law and guidance that follows, so we will continue to post any new developments. You can view our COVID-19 Response Page and additional resources by following the link here. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please contact your Fraser Trebilcock attorney.

Fraser Trebilcock attorney Paul V. McCord has more than 20 years of tax litigation experience, including serving as a clerk on the U.S. Tax Court and as a judge of the Michigan Tax Tribunal. Paul has represented clients before the IRS, Michigan Department of Treasury, other state revenue departments and local units of government. He can be contacted at 517.377.0861 or pmccord@fraserlawfirm.com.

The DHS / CDC “September Surprise” – The Order to Temporarily Halt Residential Evictions

Introduction:

Effective upon publication in the Federal Register on Friday, September 4, 2020, the Acting Chief of Staff of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), announced an Order that purports to temporarily halt all residential evictions in the United States and US Territories. The Order includes tribal lands but excludes American Samoa. The stated purpose is to prevent the further spread of COVID-19.

The Gist:

Under this Order a residential landlord or other entity with a legal right to evict is prevented from evicting “any covered person from any residential property in any jurisdiction to which this Order applies.” The duration of the Order is through the end of 2020. This Order does not apply in any State, local, territorial, or tribal area with a moratorium on residential evictions that provides the same or greater level of public health protection than are provided in this Order.

Because Michigan’s eviction moratorium has expired as of July 15, 2020 (even though some district courts enforced it through August 15, 2020), this Order applies in Michigan. Some media outlets were reporting that some Michigan district courts are halting eviction procedures until the legality and enforceability of the Order is worked out.

This Order is intended to be temporary and it does not “relieve any individual of any obligation to pay rent, make a housing payment, or comply with any other obligation that the individual may have under a tenancy.” Landlords can still charge and collect of fees, penalties, and interest as a result of the failure to pay rent, assuming they are allowed for under the lease. Landlords can still evict for reasons other than non-payment caused by Covid-19, such as where a tenant is:

“engaging in criminal activity”;
“threatening the health or safety of other residents”;
“damaging or posing an immediate and significant risk” to property;
“violating any applicable building code, health ordinance, or similar regulation relating to health and safety”; or
“violating any other contractual obligation” other than payment of rent or associated fees.

The Tenant Declaration:

The Order attaches a sample declaration that a Tenant must sign, under penalty of perjury, in order to qualify for protection under the Order. “Each adult listed on the lease. . . should. . . provide a declaration.” The Declaration must state that the tenant:

Has used best efforts to obtain all available government assistance for rent or housing;
Earns less than $99,000 annually ($198,000 if filing a joint tax return), or was not required to report any income in 2019 to the IRS, or received an Economic Impact Payment (stimulus check) pursuant to Section 2201 of the CARES Act;
Is unable to pay the full rent due to substantial loss of household income;
Is using best efforts to make timely partial payments that are as close to the full payment as the individual’s circumstances may permit; and that
Eviction would likely render the individual homeless or force them into a new congregate or shared living setting.

Under the terms of the Order, if a tenant cannot so attest, the protections are not available to the tenant.

The Stick:

The Order comes with stiff criminal penalties and fines for violators. A person violating this Order may be subject to a fine up to $100,000 if the violation does not result in a death, one year in jail, or both. If the violation results in death the fine can rise to $250,000 plus one year in jail. Institutional violators may be subject to a fine of no more than $200,000 per event if the violation does not result in a death or $500,000 per event if the violation results in a death. The U.S. Department of Justice is the only department or person that can initiate court proceedings seeking to impose these criminal penalties.

Federal Authority and What this Likely Means:

The authority for this Order is Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. §264, along with a related regulation, being 42 CFR §70.2. This Order represents, at a minimum, creative use of the enabling authority. Others (including judges and attorneys for landlords)would argue that the statute and regulation cited as authority for this Order do not, on their face, grant the authority for its issuance. Until a federal court strikes the Order, however, landlords would be advised to heed it – particularly due to the severe penalties associated with a violation.

The underlying statute, 42 U.S.C. § 264, authorizes the Surgeon General, with approval of the DHHS Secretary, “to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from . . . one State or possession into any other.” For that purpose the Surgeon General “may provide for. . . inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected or contaminated as to be sources of dangerous infection to human beings, and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary.” Id. (emphasis added). Editorially, this Order appears to rely completely on (or arguably stretch) the “other measures” language.

From there the statute authorizes actions such as apprehending and forcibly detaining infected people, foreign nationals and others entering the country, and conduct of that sort. Nothing remotely appears to provide authority to the CDC or jurisdiction to the CDC over people that are well and otherwise unaffected by the disease in question.

Similarly, “Nothing in this section or. . . the regulations promulgated under such sections, may be construed as superseding any provision under State law (including regulations and including provisions established by political subdivisions of States), except to the extent that such a provision conflicts with an exercise of Federal authority under this section.” 42 U.S.C. § 264(e). On the face of it, local ordinances can take precedence over this federal statute if they are not in conflict with what appear to be the enforcement powers under this statute. A court could find that the general common law of contracts and court eviction-governing statutes could be the exact laws that shall not be preempted by the federal scheme.

The Order also relies on 42 CFR § 70.2 for its authority. Under this regulation, which by title addresses “measures in the event of inadequate local control,” the CDC Director must determine that measures taken by state or local health authorities “are insufficient to prevent the spread of any of the communicable diseases from such State. . . to any other State.” Once local or state inadequacy is determined, the CDC Director “may take such measures to prevent such spread of the diseases as he/she deems reasonably necessary, including inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, and destruction of animals or articles believed to be sources of infection.” Under the regulation, there is no “other measures” language as appears in the statute. However, the powers “include” an express list of items and may well contain related implied powers. That said, an eviction moratorium seems to be quite a departure from fumigating and exterminating pests as listed in the express powers.

Because the Order arguably exceeds the authority of the CDC in this instance, there are reasons to believe that this Order, though enforceable on its face and applicable in Michigan under its terms, may not survive a rigorous judicial examination. That is not a reason to disregard it, however, unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction strikes it or enjoins the enforcement of it.

Ambiguity – Are Land Contracts and Possessory Writs Covered?

Under the definition of “evict” in the Order, the eviction prohibition “does not include foreclosure on a home mortgage.” Thus, unless there is a foreclosure moratorium in place covering the mortgagor-homeowner, it appears that this Order, at a minimum, does not halt the foreclosure process. To wit:

“Evict” and “Eviction” means any action by a landlord, owner of a residential property, or other person with a legal right to pursue eviction or a possessory action, to remove or cause the removal of a covered person from a residential property. This does not include foreclosure on a home mortgage.

This “other person with a legal right to pursue . . . a possessory action” language might, on its face, include a land contract vendor-seller or even a mortgagee-lender and prevent them from obtaining the final eviction order or “Writ of Restitution” which completes the foreclosure or land contract forfeiture process where the purchaser remains in possession of the property. Certainly the language excluding foreclosure from the Order would support a position that a foreclosing mortgagee-lender can obtain that final possessory writ (which is basically finalizing an eviction). But, land contract vendor-sellers are not expressly excluded. The answer for land contract vendor-sellers may lie in the definition of the “residential property” to which the eviction moratorium is intended to apply. That states that:

“Residential property” means any property leased for residential purposes, including any house, building, mobile home or land in a mobile home park, or similar dwelling leased for residential purposes, but shall not include any hotel, motel, or other guest house rented to a temporary guest or seasonal tenant as defined under the laws of the State, territorial, tribal, or local jurisdiction.

This “leased for residential purposes” language would appear on its face to exclude land contract sales. While mortgagor-borrowers and land contract vendee-purchasers might have arguments against eviction based on the “right to pursue possessory action” language, it appears that the bulk of the Order supports the argument that the Order does not impact the right to recapture possession after a failed sale, either land contract or mortgage. As of the time of writing, however, there does not appear to be any scholarship or judicial opinions on the matter.

If you have any questions, please contact your Fraser Trebilcock attorney.

Jared Roberts is a shareholder at Fraser Trebilcock who works in real estate litigation and transactions, among other areas of the law. Jared also “walks the walk” as a landlord and owner of residential rental properties and apartments in Downtown Lansing. He may be reached at jroberts@fraserlawfirm.com and (517) 482-0887.

Michigan’s New Executive Orders 2020-160 & 2020-161

On July 29, 2020, the Governor signed Executive Orders 2020-160 and 2020-161, amending Michigan’s Safe Start Order and issuing revised workplace safeguards.

Starting July 31, 2020, statewide indoor gatherings will be limited to 10 people and certain bars will be closed for indoor service across the state. While this was the case previously for most of Michigan, the new order applies these restrictions to Regions 6 and 8, northern lower Michigan and the Upper Peninsula. Outdoor gatherings are still restricted to 100 people unless located within Regions 6 and 8. For these regions outdoor gatherings are limited to 250 people.

Remote work, which previously looked to be strongly encouraged is now being required if an employee can perform their duties remotely (EO 2020-160, p 3, par 1.).

Stay tuned for more developments as new information is released.

The Importance of a Well-Crafted Ownership Agreement for Your Business During the COVID-19 Pandemic

When times are good, many business disputes between shareholders, partners, or LLC members tend to work themselves out. If business is strong, the promise of profits brings parties to the table to settle their disagreements. To the extent one party wants out, it’s easier to come up with an equitable division of assets when business is humming. When times are tough, discord more frequently leads to business disruption. Accordingly, it’s in times like these, when the COVID-19 pandemic is wreaking havoc on the economy, that it’s important to make sure that your company’s operative documents are up-to-date and address key issues that may arise if your business experiences distress and the relationship among its owners is put to the test.

The Importance of an Ownership Agreement

You’ve heard the age-old advice before: Get it in writing. It’s imperative for every multi-owner business, no matter its structure, to have a written agreement in place that provides a framework for operating the business, making decisions, and navigating disputes among the owners.

Such an agreement, called an operating agreement, a partnership agreement, or a shareholders’ agreement depending on the business’ structure (this article will refer to such agreements, collectively, as “ownership agreements”), covers a range of important issues, including voting on important decisions, capital contributions to the company, guidelines for admitting new owners, splitting profits and debts, and the manner in which disputes between owners are to be resolved.

When a business is founded, optimism between owners is high and many overlook the importance of having a written agreement in place to address future contingencies. In some instances, owners simply use a form agreement that doesn’t address their unique circumstances.

For many business owners, operating according to a handshake deal or a poorly conceived ownership agreement works fine—until it doesn’t. Business conditions worsen. Relationships between owners deteriorate. Conditions change. And without a clear, thoughtful, and written agreement in place, owners have few means by which to resolve their differences. They are left to operate according to default rules established by state statutes, and often end up in litigation.

An ownership agreement is like an insurance policy—you don’t think you will need it, but it’s irresponsible, and potentially ruinous, not to have one in place to mitigate against risks. Once a dispute about important business issues arises, it’s too late to start thinking about conflict resolution procedures, such as those that are found in a strong, well-crafted agreement. Indeed, without an agreement in place, a dispute is much more likely to devolve into litigation since there’s no clear mechanism for brokering a resolution.

Common Provisions in an Ownership Agreement

It is important for business owners to work with an experienced business attorney to create an ownership agreement or revise an existing one. Doing so helps ensure that the agreement reflects the parties’ intent and the unique characteristics of the business. While every agreement is (or at least should be) customized to cover a business’ particular circumstances, common provisions address issues such as:

Management of the Business: Who is responsible for the management of the business? How are decisions to be made? An ownership agreement should ensure that the roles and responsibilities of the owners are clearly defined.
Meetings of the Owners: When are meetings to be held? What rules govern voting? What notice is required? By establishing clear processes and procedures for information sharing and decision making, a business can avoid disputes that often arise when an owner feels that he or she is being left in the dark.
Capital Contributions and Ownership Division: An ownership agreement should clearly identify how much capital each owner contributes to the business and how ownership of the business is allocated among the parties.
Profit Distribution: Not surprisingly, many disputes between owners result from disagreements over how and when profits are distributed.
Transfers of Ownership Interests: One of the most important provisions in any agreement is determining how ownership interests may be transferred. Often, agreements will provide that purported transfers that do not adhere to the ownership agreement are treated as void under the agreement. Many agreements also include buy-sell provisions that determine the process of buying out an owner and how the purchase price for an owner’s interest is calculated.
Termination of Ownership: Ownership Agreements should detail the terms on which the business can be terminated and how assets are distributed upon termination.
Resolving Disputes: To help avoid litigation in the event of a dispute, many agreements provide for alternative dispute resolution such as mediation and arbitration.

Is Your Business Ready for the Unexpected?

These are volatile times. It’s hard to run a multi-owner business under any circumstances, and the COVID-19 pandemic has further complicated life for all of us. It’s not uncommon for business owners to experience disharmony, but keep in mind that a dispute does not mean a business breakup is inevitable. A well-crafted ownership agreement can provide parties with a framework for resolving disputes and getting back to business. And if a separation is inevitable, an agreement can allow owners to move forward in an organized and efficient manner, without public scrutiny or costly litigation.

If your business does not have an ownership agreement in place, now is the time to focus on this important priority. If your business has an agreement but it has not been reviewed in years, now is the time to dust it off. We have significant experience assisting clients in fashioning agreements that allow their businesses to run smoothly and help them to resolve disputes without resorting to litigation. For more information, please contact one of the Business & Tax department attorneys.

Edward J. Castellani is an attorney and CPA who represents clients involved with alcohol beverages as a manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer. He may be contacted at ecast@fraserlawfirm.com or 517-377-0845.

Employer Update: Michigan’s NEW Mask Rule – Does it Affect My Business?

On Friday July 10, Governor Whitmer tightened prior rules for wearing of masks, or “face covers.” In summary, the Order requires customers who enter any “indoor public space” of a business to wear a mask, and obligates all businesses that make such “indoor public space” available to require their customers to wear masks. However, the key term, “indoor public space” is not defined in the Order or prior orders. Previously announced minor exceptions for mask use, such as removing coverings while seated in a restaurant, or exempting persons who cannot medically tolerate wearing a mask, are continued. EO 2020-147 applies state-wide, including Regions 6 and 8, the Traverse City area and the Upper Peninsula.

The Provisions of the Executive Order

Section 1 of EO 2020-147 applies to all persons moving in public – outside of their home or residence — within Michigan. The rule states:

“1. Any individual who leaves their home or place of residence must wear a face covering over their nose and mouth:

a. When in any indoor public space.

b. When outdoors and unable to consistently maintain a distance of six feet or more from individuals who are not members of their household; and

c. When waiting for or riding on public transportation, while in a taxi or ridesharing vehicle, or when using a private car service as a means of hired transportation.”

Section 2 of 2020-147 establishes health, age, and business service exceptions to the rule set out in Section 1.

Section 3 of 2020-147 applies to every business in Michigan that is “open to the public,” and makes those businesses responsible to require mask use by visiting customers. Section 3 provides:

“3. To protect workers, shoppers, and the community, no business that is open to the public may provide service to a customer or allow a customer to enter its premises, unless the customer is wearing a face covering as required by this order.”

Interpretation and Application

As noted, the phrase “indoor public space” used in Section 1 does not appear to be defined. However, the Governor has spoken repeatedly and publicly about requiring mask use in retail and, especially, food establishment and bar settings. Also, Section 3 references “shoppers” and another provision of Section 3, not quoted in this Article, refers to liquor licensees. Considering the entire Order in the context of its issuance, it appears that EO 2020-147 is intended to apply to situations where public presence within the “indoor … premises” of the business is routine or, at least, reasonably anticipated.

Further, Executive Order 147 does not lessen any preexisting face covering requirements, for example, industry-specific rules for non-public operations involving manufacturing or, apparently, office work where no general public access is permitted for the purpose of operating the business.

Examples of businesses that must require mask use by customers present to receive otherwise permissible services include:

Food service establishments (currently limited by EO 2020-143 to those earning 30% or less of their gross receipts from alcoholic beverages);
Grocery, clothing, retail and other stores or similar establishments, including shopping mall common areas;
Publicly used common areas of otherwise private buildings, for example, commercial or apartment building lobbies, restroom areas; and,
Public or not-for-profit facilities.

Examples of businesses likely are responsible to require mask use include:

Offices or areas of offices where members of the public are present, for example, reception or conference rooms made available to customers in the course of the ordinary business of the enterprise.
Waiting rooms (health care facilities are subject to specific rules).

You can read the entire Executive Order here.

This alert serves as a general summary, and does not constitute legal guidance. All statements made in this article should be verified by counsel retained specifically for that purpose. Please contact us with any specific questions.

Fraser Trebilcock Shareholder Dave Houston has over 40 years of experience representing employers in planning, counseling, and litigating virtually all employment claims and disputes including labor relations (NLRB and MERC), wage and overtime, and employment discrimination, and negotiation of union contracts. He has authored numerous publications regarding employment issues. You can reach him at 517.377.0855 or dhouston@fraserlawfirm.com.

Using Forbearance Agreements to Protect Commercial Real Estate Lender Interests During COVID-19

While much attention has been paid to the struggles of businesses, such as restaurants and retail establishments, to survive the economic downturn wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, those who lend to such businesses for the purchase of real estate are also dealing with the fallout.

Every real estate loan payment missed by a borrower puts lenders in a more precarious financial position. Even borrowers who remain current on their loan payment obligations may find themselves in default, as lower property valuations result in borrowers failing to meet debt yield, loan-to-value or similar financial covenants.

While the economy in Michigan and across the country is reopening in fits and starts, it’s by no means “business as usual.” Economic woes are likely to continue, which means that lenders will be forced to deal with more financially distressed borrowers. In some instances, this means the possibility of foreclosure. In others, this means dealing with debtors in bankruptcy, as evidenced by a recent surge in bankruptcy filings. According to data from Epiq Systems, commercial Chapter 11 filings were up 48% in May as compared to May 2019.

However, more often, loan defaults by borrowers, and the possibility of future defaults due to financial distress, are dealt with outside of foreclosure or bankruptcy. In many cases, a lender is better off working out a deal that keeps a debtor in the property and running its business, so that it can work through the distress and remain solvent. The potential for recovery via foreclosure or bankruptcy is often limited—not to mention the costs associated with such processes are often steep, and with widespread court closures, any judicial action may be curtailed.

One of the primary tools lenders can use to accommodate distressed borrowers, while preserving their own rights and remedies, is a forbearance agreement.

In a typical forbearance agreement, the borrower acknowledges that it has defaulted on its obligations, and the lender agrees that it will refrain from exercising its remedies for such defaults as long as the borrower performs or observes the new conditions set out in the forbearance agreement, and, by a certain date, cures the defaults. A lender who forbears from enforcing remedies does not waive defaults, but rather grants a borrower time to work through its issues.

A forbearance agreement is best suited for situations where the lender has assessed that the borrower’s struggles are short term and will improve. Given that conditions for many borrowers will improve as the economy reopens, forbearance agreements will likely be widely used by lenders in the coming months.

While every forbearance agreement is customized to address a specific scenario, most contain common provisions, including:

Forbearance Period: The forbearance period is the period within which the lender will agree to forbear from exercising its default remedies under the loan agreement. The forbearance period typically lasts for a specified period of time (e.g., 120 days), subject to early termination by the lender if the borrower defaults in its obligations under the forbearance agreement.
Borrower Acknowledgements, Reaffirmations, and Waivers: Borrowers are commonly required to acknowledge and affirm key terms, representations and warranties from the existing loan agreement in the forbearance agreement. These may include waiving defenses, acknowledging amounts due under the loan, and affirming the validity of the lender’s lien, among other things. Lenders also typically condition their agreement to forbear on the borrower waiving claims against the lender based on the loan documents and dealings between the parties taking place prior to the execution of the forbearance agreement in order to avoid lender liability claims.
Agreements as to the Financial Terms of the Forbearance: A forbearance agreement will address financial terms, such as the interest rate the borrower will pay during the forbearance period, which may be different from the original interest rate under the loan documents. Additional terms may include the amount of any forbearance fee payable by the borrower, a reduction to the lender’s commitment to extend additional credit, reduction of overadvance or overformula balances, and any deferral or modification to the debt service payment schedule.
Additional Reporting: During the forbearance period, a lender may request reporting information in addition to what is required by the existing loan agreement. Such information may include the borrower’s cash flow status and expenses, weekly business updates from the borrower, and access to the property for inspection.

A forbearance agreement can benefit both a borrower and lender. A borrower is given time to work out its business issues or attempt to sell or refinance the property, and a lender can shore up its position by addressing deficiencies in the original loan documents and negotiating more favorable terms as described above, and hopefully avoid having to exercise foreclosure or other default remedies under the loan agreement. For some borrowers, foreclosure and/or bankruptcy may be inevitable. But commercial real estate lenders are often well-served by pursuing a forbearance agreement in order to better align the interests of lender and borrower during the borrower’s recovery period.

If you have any questions about forbearance agreements, or real estate workout issues in general, please contact Douglas J. Austin at 517.377.0838 or at daustin@fraserlawfirm.com.

Fraser Trebilcock attorney Douglas J. Austin has been at the center of real estate law for over 45 years. In addition to being a shareholder at Fraser Trebilcock, Doug is also the chair of our Real Estate Law department. He can be contacted at 517.377.0838 or at daustin@fraserlawfirm.com.

Reopening Offices Under Michigan COVID-19 Executive Orders

Governor Whitmer’s various Executive Orders (“EOs”) have transitioned from shut-down to phased reopening. Those multiple EOs make the reopening process confusing. This article summarizes the requirements to permissible recall office workers for work outside of their own homes. However, the actual requirements are lengthy and all must be met by the employer. We have collected those requirements in a document that may be obtained HERE.

Office Workers – Phased Reopening

Executive Order 2020-77, since superseded, began the “reopening” process for businesses within the State of Michigan. Only employers in Regions 6 and 8 – the Traverse City quadrant and the Upper Peninsula – were conditionally permitted to recall office workers to return to work. However, it is likely that the conditions will be similar for the remainder of the state when office workers in other parts of the state are allowed to return on a Region-by-Region basis. There are two sets of rules for operating office businesses – one applicable to all employers using “in-person” services, and a second set applicable to office work specifically.

Requirements for Employers Allowing In-Person “Office” Work

Identification of Workers Who May Permissibly be Recalled

Only office workers specifically permitted to be recalled may work at the employer’s premises. Each employer that seeks to recall office workers is responsible to ensure that workers are recalled “only to the extent that such work is not capable of being performed remotely.” EO 96 Section 11.m.

Each employer “must determine which of their workers are critical infrastructure workers or workers who perform resumed activities and inform such workers of that designation … in writing, whether by electronic message, public website, or other appropriate means.” EO 96 Section 6.a.

Most importantly, “[b]usinesses and operations maintaining in-person activities must adopt social distancing practices and other mitigation measures to protect workers and patrons, as described in Executive Order 2020-97 and any orders that may follow from it.” EO 96 Section 6.c.

Workers may also be recalled to prepare the workplace to be in compliance with the various Executive Orders. Workers necessary to prepare a workplace to follow the workplace standards described in Executive Order 2020-97 and to otherwise ready the workplace for reopening. EO 97 Sec 11.o.

Executive Order 2020-97 – Mandatory Requirements

The rules set out in Executive Order 2020-97, as referenced, are extensive, mandatory, complex, and overly long for inclusion here. Rules governing office work are selected and available HERE.

Employers must note that the penalties for non-compliance may be significant. A “willful violation” of the Governor’s Executive orders “is a misdemeanor. See, EO 2020-96 section 22. Likely more concerning, EO 96 also states:

“Any business or operation that violates the rules in sections 1 through 10 has failed to provide a place of employment that is free from recognized hazards that are causing, or are likely to cause, death or serious physical harm to an employee, within the meaning of the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act, MCL 408.1011.”

Office facilities to be reopened must comply with the threshold policy adoption, social distancing and safe-work requirements of section 11 of EO 2020-97, which are applicable to all businesses requiring “in-person work.” Those rules, which have been in effect in various forms since the initial stay-at-home order, include among other things:

Develop an OSHA-compliant COVID-19 preparedness and response plan
Make that plan available to workers and others by June 1, 2020, or within two weeks of resuming in-person activities,
Designate one or more worksite supervisors or employees, who must be on-site while workers are present, to implement, monitor, and report on implementation of that Plan
Provide COVID-19 training to employees that covers, at a minimum:

(1) Workplace infection-control practices.

(2) The proper use of personal protective equipment.

(3) Steps the employee must take to notify the business of any COVID-19 symptoms or of a suspected or confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19.

(4) How to report unsafe working conditions.

Conduct a daily entry self-screening protocol for all employees entering the workplace, including, at a minimum, a questionnaire covering symptoms and suspected or confirmed exposure to people with possible COVID19.
Keep everyone on the worksite premises at least six feet from one another to the maximum extent possible,
Provide non-medical grade face coverings to employees,
Require face coverings to be worn when employees cannot consistently maintain six feet of separation,
Increase facility cleaning and disinfection to limit exposure to COVID-19 and adopt protocols to clean and disinfect the facility in the event of a positive COVID-19 case in the workplace.
Make cleaning supplies and access to hand washing or sanitizer available to employees upon entry and at the worksite(k) When an employee is identified with a confirmed case of COVID-19, within 24
Establish a response plan for dealing with a confirmed infection in the workplace, including protocols for sending employees home and for temporary closures to allow for deep cleaning.
Promote remote work to the fullest extent possible.
Adopt any additional infection-control measures that are reasonable in light of the work performed at the worksite and the rate of infection in the surrounding community.

EO 2020-97 Section 1.

Again, there are additional, mandatory work safety requirements set forth in Executive Order 97.

SBA Opens Safe Harbor Certification for PPP Loans of Less than $2 Million

The SBA recently issued guidance extending an automatic safe harbor to borrowers receiving Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans with an original principal amount of less than $2 million. These borrowers will be assumed to have performed the required certification concerning the necessity of their loan requests in good faith, according to guidance posted by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) on Wednesday, May 13, 2020.

Congress established the PPP to provide relief to small businesses during the coronavirus pandemic. PPP funds are available to small businesses that were in operation on February 15th with 500 or fewer employees. In addition, not-for-profits, veterans’ organizations, Tribal concerns, self-employed individuals, sole proprietorships, and independent contractors were eligible to apply for PPP loans. Businesses with more than 500 employees in certain industries could also apply for loans.

Perhaps the key feature of PPP loans is that they are forgivable in certain circumstances. Loan forgiveness was designed to help employers keep their employees paid and keep their businesses from succumbing to the economic hardships created by the coronavirus pandemic.

After a few well publicized examples, on April 23, 2020 the SBA cautioned that that businesses with substantial access to liquidity may not qualify for PPP loans and announced that the SBA would review all PPP loans in excess of $2 million to make sure borrowers’ self-certification for the loans was appropriate. If the SBA determines during its review that a borrower lacked an adequate basis for certifying the necessity of its loan, the SBA will seek repayment of the outstanding PPP loan balance and inform the lender that the borrower is not eligible for loan forgiveness.

According to the SBA, borrowers with loans below the $2 million threshold are less likely to have had access to adequate sources of liquidity in the current economic environment than borrowers who obtained larger loans.

The guidance, provided as Question 46 in Treasury’s Q&As related to PPP Loans, states that borrowers with loans of more than $2 million may still have an adequate basis for making the required good-faith certification, based on their individual circumstances and the language of the certification and SBA guidance.

The SBA said the safe harbor will promote economic certainty for PPP borrowers with limited resources as they work to retain and rehire employees. The $2 million threshold also will help the SBA conserve its resources and focus its reviews on larger loans.

Client Alert: COVID-19 Group Health Plan Service & Notification Requirements

On April 11, 2020, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Treasury (Departments) jointly released frequently asked questions (FAQs) regarding health care coverage issues surrounding the implementation of the FFCRA and the CARES Act. See Joint FAQs.

Notably, the Departments maintain that the FAQs are a statement of policy and are effective immediately.

The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) was enacted on March 18, 2020 and requires health plans and insurers to provide certain items and services related to diagnostic testing for detection of SARS-CoV-2 or the diagnosis of COVID-19 without cost sharing or prior authorization from March 18, 2020 and during the applicable emergency period. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) was enacted on March 27, 2020 and broadened the range of diagnostic items and services that plans and issuers must cover. These FAQs represent the Departments’ approach to assist employers, issuers, providers and other stakeholders to come into compliance as well as to help families understand the new laws.

Applicable Plans

The FFCRA and CARES Act apply to group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group or individual health insurance coverage. The term “group health plan” includes both insured and self-insured group health plans, whether they are ERISA plans, non-federal governmental plans or church plans. The term “individual health insurance coverage” includes individual market coverage through or outside of an Exchange. It also includes student health insurance coverage.

However, short-term, limited-duration insurance is not subject… neither are excepted benefits or plans covering less than two employees (such as retiree-only plans).

Duration of Compliance

The FFCRA provisions are effective March 18, 2020 and continue during the public health emergency.

Required Items & Services

Q3-Q5 address the type of items and services that are required under the FFCRA and CARES Act, including:

in vitro diagnostic test (meeting certain requirements) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 or the diagnosis of COVID-19, and the administration of such tests; this includes serological tests for COVID-19, which are used to detect antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus; and
items and services furnished to an individual during health care provider office visits (including in-person and telehealth visits), urgent care center visits, and emergency room visits that result in an order for or administration of an in vitro diagnostic product, but only to the extent the items and services relate to the furnishing or administration of the product or to the evaluation of the individual for purposes of determining the need of the individual for such product.

The required benefits must be furnished during office visits. The Departments construe the term “visit” broadly and include non-traditional care settings, such as drive-through screenings. See Q8.

Additionally, a recent IRS Notice issued just days ago states that testing and treatment for COVID-19 includes “the panel of diagnostic testing for influenza A & B, norovirus and other coronaviruses, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and any items or services required to be covered with zero cost sharing under … the CARES Act.” See IRS Notice 2020-29.

Notice 2020-29 also separately expands Notice 2020-15 to provide that reimbursement of expenses for testing and treatment of COVID-19 incurred on or after January 1, 2020 will not result in a high deductible health plan (HDHP) to fail to be an HDHP under Code section 223.

Cost-Sharing Requirements

Cost-sharing requirements (including deductibles, copayments and coinsurance), prior authorization requirements, and medical management requirements cannot be imposed for benefits that must be provided under section 6001(a) of the FFCRA, as amended by section 3201 of the CARES Act.

With regard to out-of-network providers, Q7 of the Joint FAQs provides that plans and issuers are required to provide coverage for such items and services even if providers have not agreed to accept a negotiated rate as payment in full. In such case, a cash price equal to the service as listed b the provider on a public internet website must be provided (or another amount may be negotiated for less than such cash price).

Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC) Requirements & Mid-Year Changes

While material modifications to the SBC normally require that the plan provide 60 days advance notice, the Departments state that they will not take enforcement action regarding greater coverage of COVID-19 diagnosis and/or treatment, as long as plans and issuers provide notice of the changes as soon as reasonably practicable. This non-enforcement policy applies only while the COVID-19 public health emergency and/or COVID-19 national emergency declaration is in affect. Coverage changes beyond this emergency period must fully comply.

State Standards

States may impose additional standards or requirements on health insurance issuers regarding COVID-19 diagnosis or treatment, as long as they do not prevent application of a federal requirement.

Excepted Benefits

The FAQs describe types of excepted benefits, including employee assistance programs (EAPs), and provide that COVID-19 diagnosis and testing offered under an EAP will not jeopardize that EAP’s excepted benefit status while the COVID-19 public health or national emergency declaration is in effect. Additionally on-site medical clinics offering COVID-19 diagnosis and testing will remain excepted benefits.

Telehealth & Remote Care Services

The Departments maintain that widespread use of telehealth and other remote care services are essential to fight the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and they strongly encourage all plans and issuers to promote and notify individuals about these services.

The CARES Act has already offered flexibility with regard to high deductible health plans (HDHPs) and health savings accounts (HSAs)… stating that use of telehealth and other remote care services prior to the deductible being met will not jeopardize HDHP status, even if their use is not for COVID-19 related reasons. Moreover, individuals using telehealth or other such services outside of the HDHP may also still contribute to HSAs. The CARES Act amended Internal Revenue Code section 223(c) in this respect and will remain in effect from March 27, 2020 and for plan years beginning on or before December 31, 2021.

However, subsequently released IRS Notice 2020-29, mentioned above, provides that telehealth and other remote care services provided on or after January 1, 2020 (and applying for plan years beginning on or before December 31, 2021) will not affect HDHP status, expanding on the CARES Act which previously applied this rule effective as of March 27, 2020.

Similar to guidance previously stated in these FAQs, plans and issuers who add benefits (or reduce or eliminate cost sharing) for telehealth and other remote care services will temporarily be deemed not to violate notice of material modifications requirements or mid-year change restrictions. The Departments will apply the same non-enforcement policy as described above but only during the emergency declaration and only as long as notice is provided as soon as reasonably practicable.

Participant Communication and Lawsuits

Please keep in mind this is a Department non-enforcement policy and does not protect employers and plans from participant lawsuits.

As you are well aware, the law and guidance are rapidly evolving in this area. Please check with your Fraser Trebilcock attorney for the most recent updates.

This alert serves as a general summary, and does not constitute legal guidance. Please contact us with any specific questions.

Elizabeth H. Latchana specializes in employee health and welfare benefits. Recognized for her outstanding legal work, in both 2019 and 2015, Beth was selected as “Lawyer of the Year” in Lansing for Employee Benefits (ERISA) Law by Best Lawyers, and in 2017 as one of the Top 30 “Women in the Law” by Michigan Lawyers Weekly. Contact her for more information on this reminder or other matters at 517.377.0826 or elatchana@fraserlawfirm.com.

Brian T. Gallagher is an attorney at Fraser Trebilcock specializing in ERISA, Employee Benefits, and Deferred and Executive Compensation. He can be reached at (517) 377-0886 or bgallagher@fraserlawfirm.com.

You Can’t Take It With You And You Can’t Keep It: IRS Says Send Back Stimulus Checks Received by Deceased Relatives

Approximately 2.8 million deaths occur in the United States each year from all causes. This leads to an interesting dilemma with the stimulus payments/checks issued by the IRS. A small number of people are receiving checks for their relatives who are no longer with us. This is because in the rush to get stimulus checks out to the American people, the IRS used information from our 2019 and 2018 tax returns.

So, what should you do if you receive a stimulus check for a deceased family member?

Keep it?
Deposit it into an account held by the estate?
Donate to charity?
Something else?
Or, heaven forbid, send it back?

The IRS says, send it back. The entire payment should be returned, unless it was made payable to joint filers and one spouse is still alive. In that case, only the portion of the payment made on account of the deceased person needs to be sent back. This amount will be $1,200, unless your joint adjusted gross income is more than $150,000.

In their “Frequently Asked Questions” on stimulus payments (technically called “economic impact payments” or EIP), the IRS outlined the procedures for returning a stimulus check issued to deceased persons. FAQ 41 available here.

If the payment was a paper check:

Write “Void” in the endorsement section on the back of the check.
Mail the voided Treasury check immediately to the appropriate IRS location listed below.
Don’t staple, bend, or paper clip the check.
Include a note stating the reason for returning the check.

If the payment was a paper check and you have cashed it, or if the payment was a direct deposit:

For decedents from Michigan, submit a personal check, money order, etc., immediately to:

Kansas City Refund Inquiry Unit
333 W Pershing Rd.
Mail Stop 6800, N-2
Kansas City, MO 64108

Write on the check/money order made payable to “U.S. Treasury” and write 2020EIP, and the taxpayer identification number (social security number, or individual taxpayer identification number) of the recipient of the check.
Include a brief explanation of the reason for returning the EIP, such as the recipient died on X date.

This alert serves as a general summary, and does not constitute legal guidance. Please contact us with any specific questions or comments.