
The DRM 1930’s murder mystery gang.
Day Rettig Martin | Experienced Attorneys in Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Our attorneys have over 100 years of combined legal experience. Our team can help you with estate planning & probate, business, multi-employer plans, bankruptcy, and more.
The Iowa Supreme Court has issued an Order revising the Child Support Guidelines. Those revisions take effect on January 1, 2022 and apply to cases pending on that date and thereafter. They also apply to modification of child support orders.
The purpose of the Guidelines is to provide for the best interests of the children by recognizing the duty of both parents to provide adequate support for their children in proportion to their respective incomes. There can be a low-income adjustment for low-income obligated non-custodial parents with the objective of striking a balance between adequately supporting the obligated parent’s children and allowing the obligated parent to live at least at a subsistence level.
There is a rebuttable presumption that the amount of child support calculated under the Guidelines is the correct amount of child support to be awarded; however, that amount may be adjusted upward or downward to provide for the needs of the children or to do justice between the parties under the circumstances of the case pursuant to Rule 9.11. The court may, if appropriate, impute income to a party under Rule 9.11. Any variance must be supported in a written finding by the Court. Child care expenses can play a role in determining a variance but are considered independent of any amount computed by the use of the Guidelines or any other grounds for a variance.
Spousal support, whether paid in the present case or in a prior case, is considered when determining how “gross monthly income” is determined based upon whether the spousal support is subject to income taxation; however, “reimbursement spousal support” will not be added to a payee’s income or deducted from a payor’s income when determining “gross monthly income”.
“Uncovered medical expenses” will be shared by the parties in proportion to their respective net incomes in joint physical care cases. In all other cases the custodial parent is to pay the first $250 per calendar year per child up to a maximum of $800 per calendar year for all children, thereafter the parties pay in proportion to their respective net incomes.
There are still credits given for extraordinary visitation care under Rule 9.9 depending upon the number of overnight visitations taken by the non-custodial parent.
The Guidelines dictate that all parties must file a child support guidelines worksheet prior to a support hearing or the establishment of a support order.
If you have a specific support issue, please contact our office.
Another hot and muggy Linn County Fair is in the books. Local 4-H and FFA members brought their projects for judging, and the public came to view the projects and attractions of the fair. As is the norm, the fair concluded with the livestock auction where this year the participants sold market hogs, sheep, and cattle. Potential buyers began registering at 8:00 am on Monday, June 28, at which time they were treated to a breakfast of doughnuts and other sweet breads. One new feature of the auction was reserving locker slots for the livestock purchased. Either the buyers needed to make arrangement with the locker/processor ahead of time to process the animal, or the seller could reserve a spot. Any animal not kept for processing would be sent to market. Attorney Ron Martin once again attended the Fair and the Livestock Auction. Having grown up on a farm and been a member of 4-H and FFA himself, Ron likes to support the young agriculturalists by participating in the auction. Below is a picture from two of the girls that Day Rettig Martin, P.C. bought livestock from at the auction.
Ron’s law practice includes agricultural and business debt restructuring and commercial matters. If you have any legal questions about your farming or business operation, feel free to call Day Rettig Martin, P.C.
On March 11, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), the government’s most recent $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief bill. According to information provided by the US Chamber of Commerce, there are many things in the new bill to assist struggling small businesses. In particular, the ARPA establishes what is known as the Restaurant Revitalization Fund (RRF) separate and apart from the existing Payroll Protection Program (PPP). This new RRF establishes a $28.6 billion grant program specifically for restaurants and bars. Owners with fewer than twenty locations and whose locations are not owned by the state or local government will be able to apply for RRF grants.
Unlike the PPP where applications are through certain, qualified financial institutions, the RRF program will be administered directly through the Small Business Administration (SBA). There is no official launch date for the RRF program, but restaurant owners interested in applying for an RRF should prepare now by registering with the government using the System of Award Management (SAM) website. SAM registration is required so the government has the necessary information to process RRF applications. Entities not already registered with SAM should:
In addition to SAM account registration, interested restaurant/bar businesses should also prepare financial statements clearly showing a gross revenue loss during 2020 as compared to 2019. You may need assistance from an accountant in preparing this documentation.
Taking these steps now will allow you to take advantage of the RRF program as soon as the application period is announced. Government officials warn that funds for this program may go quickly.
The ARPA also extended the Employee Retention Tax Credit (ERTC) for an additional six months until the end of 2021. The ERTC provides a credit of up to $7,000 per employee per quarter for those small businesses still suffering economic hardships related to the pandemic. Again, in order to qualify for the ERTC, employers must show either:
Consult your tax advisor about taking advantage of this program.
Finally, on March 17, 2021, the House of Representatives voted to extend the deadline for new PPP applications from the current deadline of March 31 until May 31. This measure now goes to the Senate for approval. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. has indicated that Democrats in the Senate want to see this measure approved quickly. A companion to the House Bill extending the PPP deadline was introduced by a bipartisan group of senators including U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship Chair Ben Cardin, D-Md.; Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine; and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.
If you have questions about these programs, contact attorney Erica Yoder.
On Wednesday, February 24, the Biden administration announced major changes to the Payroll Protection Program (“PPP”). PPP provides forgivable loans to businesses adversely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The changes announced on Wednesday are designed to benefit and get payroll assistance funds into the hands of small businesses. For a two-week period beginning February 25, 2021 and running through March 10, 2021, the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) will be accepting PPP applications only from small businesses – those businesses with fewer than 20 employees. The SBA is encouraging approved PPP lenders to reach out specifically to minority- and women-owned business, as well as sole proprietorships and independent contractors.
The changes announced on Wednesday also affect how the loan amounts are calculated. Instead of net income, the available loan amounts will be calculated using the applicant’s gross income as shown on Line 7 of Form 1040, Schedule C instead. Applicants are still required to show a twenty-five percent (25%) loss in revenue during 2020 compared to the same calendar quarter during 2019 in order to qualify. For PPP loans of less than $150,000, applicants are not required to provide proof of lost revenue at the time of application. However, proof of lost revenue will be required at the time of loan forgiveness. Applicants for loans of less than $150,000 will also benefit from a simpler, one page loan forgiveness form.
Applicants who were previously awarded PPP funds can apply for a “second draw” loan so as long as they meet the eligibility requirements noted above. According to published reports, there is approximately $143 billion in PPP funding still available.
If your current lender or financial institution does not offer PPP loans, the SBA has a website that matches applicants with approved lenders: https://www.sba.gov/funding-programs/loans/lender-match. More details about the Payroll Protection Program can be found on the SBA’s website: https://www.sba.gov/funding-programs/loans/coronavirus-relief-options/paycheck-protection-program.
There are other programs that might be of assistance to small businesses during these unprecedented economic times such as:
If you have any questions regarding how this program will effect you or your business, please contact Attorney Erica Yoder
Day Rettig Martin, P.C. welcomes Erica L. Yoder as an Associate Attorney with the firm.
Erica spent more than 14 years as in-house counsel for a large, publicly traded insurance company and 2 ½ years as in-house counsel for a holding company specializing in government contracts and turn around management before opening her own firm in 2017. She brings with her a great deal of experience within the business world. She has a BA degree from Central College, in Pella, Iowa, an MA from Purdue University, and received her JD from the University of Iowa. Growing up active in 4-H and living on a farm in rural Iowa County, Iowa, Erica brings an awareness of farm issues and a strong desire to assist rural clients. Her practice includes business formation and transactions, regulatory compliance, debt/creditor matters, bankruptcy, and estate planning.
Due to the novel coronavirus and it ability to rapidly spread, many normal summer events were canceled this year. The Linn County Fair was one of those events. For the first time since it has been held at the Central City fairgrounds, there was no Linn County Fair. However, there were still 4-H and FFA members who raised their fair projects.
The 4-H/FFA youth continued to learn and apply their knowledge and efforts to gain experience with their projects and were able to “market” their projects with the help of the Linn County Fair Board. A special thanks to Hoge Auctioneering LLC for conducting an “online” auction for the youth. Interested persons were able to view fair projects and contribute to the members by bidding. Day Rettig Martin, P.C. was happy and proud to continue its support of the fair participants and was successful in winning the bids on four entries.
Day Rettig Martin, P.C. has added ribbons from four local 4-H members to its growing collection. As Covid-19 cases in Iowa continue to rise, we are glad to do our part to help our Linn County Community. We are confident that through the efforts of the Linn County Fair Board, the Iowa Extension Service, the youth participants, and caring members of the community, the Linn County Fair will be back next year better than ever.
Earlier this week, Day Rettig Martin, P.C. was the target of a sophisticated fraud scam that attempted to swindle over $150,000 from the firm. A man identifying himself as Charles Gomez contacted our firm through our website seeking legal services. Upon initial contact, he represented that his former employer, Cardinal Health, had wrongfully terminated him in retaliation for reporting wrongful conduct. He further represented that the employer had entered into a severance agreement with him, but had failed to make payment. Our firm assigned an attorney to the matter, and the attorney corresponded with Mr. Gomez and a person identified as a representative of Cardinal Health. The “representative” conceded that the funds were owed, and a few days later the firm received a Fed Ex package with a cashier’s check for the amount that was claimed to be owed pursuant to the written Severance Agreement that Mr. Gomez had provided to us. Immediately after confirming receipt of the check, Mr. Gomez requested the money be wire transferred to a bank account in Mexico. The immediate turnaround of the funds was outside of the firm’s procedures and the attorneys contacted the issuing credit union located in Texas to determine the status of the cashier’s check. The credit union confirmed our suspicions that it had not issued the cashier’s check and would not honor it.
Our firm contacted various federal agencies to report the fraud scam and notified representatives of Cardinal Health. We learned from Cardinal Health that this scam using its name has been running for nearly 2 years. Cardinal Health stated that it is aware of 45 instances of this scam perpetrated nationwide.
This scam was different from other publicized scams in that it did not have the overt “red flags.” Many of the common red flags such as grammar and spelling issues in emails, emails being sent at odd times of the night and morning, and avoidance of providing personal information were absent from our correspondence in this instance. The severance document had the appearance of an actual confidential document, and the e-mail purported to have been sent by the representative of Cardinal Health initially appeared legitimate. Finally, the cashier’s check appeared to be legitimate and the credit union was a legitimate credit union in San Antonio, Texas.
Upon review of the files, we noticed that although the email correspondence appeared to originate from Cardinal Health, the actual domain was “cardinalheathinc.” The Fed Ex package’s “sent address” matched the West Des Moines, Iowa office of Cardinal Health; however, on future investigation it was determined that the packet was sent from Boston. We were able to confirm listings for both the Cardinal Health representative and the purported “client.” Their information was available online.
Our experience shows that law firms are not immune from the efforts of scammers. It is important to remain vigilant for scams, especially in this digital age where it is common for firms to never meet out of state clients. We suggest that everyone, including law firms, remain vigilant. Importantly, while law firms want to assist their clients and turnover funds in a timely manner, they need to verify that they have received “collected funds” prior to disbursing any payment. This is our firm’s first experience receiving what turned out to be a fraudulent “cashier’s check.” We normally consider cashier’s checks to be “collected funds.” Based on this experience we will verify all cashier’s checks in the future as a matter of course.
With many states either already dropping their stay at home orders or scheduled to loosen restrictions soon, many businesses are eager to welcome customers back to their stores. Small businesses are especially anxious as they may literally be running out of funds soon once their Paycheck Protection Program funds are used. Companies however would be incorrect to believe that everything will return to business as usual. The reasons are twofold for small businesses needing to adapt during this time: first, bringing employees and customers back is a legal minefield that needs to be mitigated; second, customers may be hesitant to shop at businesses that have not adopted safety measures.
The family of a deceased JBS SA meatpacking worker recently filed suit that alleged the unsafe conditions at a company plant resulted in him contracting a fatal case of COVID-19. The complaint brings claims of Negligence, Fraudulent Misrepresentation regarding the safety of working conditions at the plant, and Wrongful Death.
Companies should enact safety measure such as: mandating the use of masks; checking employees for a fever; and requiring social distancing of at least six feet when possible to mitigate the chances of being on the wrong side of a crippling Negligence suit. While legal scholars predict that there will a flood of litigation against businesses when reopening, they concede that only complaints alleging the heightened standard of Gross Negligence will have a chance of being successful. It will be difficult for a Plaintiff to show that the company was Grossly Negligent if a robust safety program is written down, made public, and actually followed.
One strategy the talking heads have been promoting is to let younger individuals back first, as they are less likely to be affected by the virus. It may seem then that an employer would be prudent in first allowing younger workers back in a staged reopening, while allowing older or individuals with preexisting conditions back at a later stage once the COVID-19 spread slows. Not so fast. The employer would be opening itself to an Age Discrimination Claim.
The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”) was passed in March 2020. It requires covered employers (those with fewer than 500 employees) to provide employees up to two weeks of paid sick leave for a number of reasons. Two weeks of paid sick leave at the employee’s regular rate of pay must be provided where the employee is unable to work due to being quarantined or themselves experiencing COVID-19 symptoms. Two weeks of paid sick leave at 2/3 the employee’s regular rate of pay must be provided when the employee is unable to work due to caring for an individual that is quarantined or caring for a child whose school or childcare is closed. If the employee has been employed for at least 30 days, an additional 10 weeks of paid family and medical leave must be provided at 2/3 the employee’s regular rate when caring for a child whose school or childcare provider is closed.
In an ideal world, employers would have plenty of funds to pay these types of benefits to employees. However, many small employers are barely able to keep the lights on may be forced to pay an employee for up to three months of not working. The employer would be eligible for a tax credit for these payments; however, this likely will not give many employers that are on the brink of defaulting on their loans much comfort. Employers must get appropriate need of the need for leave from employees in order to utilize tax credits.
An employer may find itself facing litigation if it chooses to terminate an employee requesting paid leave. A mother recently filed suit against Eastern Airlines LLC alleging that she was fired after making repeated inquiries and requests for paid family leave under the FFCRA.
One possible remedy for small businesses being unable to pay leave benefits is through a Department of Labor exemption. The Department of Labor has the authority to exempt small businesses from providing paid leave benefits under the FFCRA if it “would jeopardize the viability of the businesses as a going concern.” This exemption only applies for businesses with fewer than 50 employees. This exemption seems to apply only for employees seeking leave due to having to stay home to care for a child and not for employees quarantining themselves or experiencing symptoms. One of the following three conditions must then be met to claim the exemption: providing leave would result in the small business’ expenses and financial obligations exceeding available business revenues and cause the employer to cease operating at a minimal capacity; the absence of the employee requesting leave would entail a substantial risk to the financial health or operational capabilities of the employer because of their specialized skills, knowledge of the business or responsibilities; or there are not sufficient workers who are able, willing, and qualified, and who will be available at the time and place needed, to perform the labor or services provided by the employee requesting leave, and these labor or services are needed for the small business to operate at a minimal capacity.
An authorized officer of the business must document the determination that the criteria for the exemption are satisfied and retain such documentation for four years. The Department of Labor has instructed that no materials should be sent to them when seeking this exemption. Regulations are anticipated to be released in the future providing greater clarity on this exemption.
The Department of Labor has put out a helpful questions and answers document regarding other technical areas of the FFCRA such as calculating pay and number of employees.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) gives workers the right to request a reasonable accommodation which allows them to do their job. The ADA typically prohibits employers from taking employees’ temperatures as an unlawful medical examination. However, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has announced that employees can be tested as it is now job related and consistent with business necessity. What is not clear though is the question of what to do with workers with underlying conditions. Do they have to be segregated from the rest of the workforce? Can they demand to work from home while others are required to come into the office? These are the types of questions employers face as they reopen their businesses.
If the employee does not request a “reasonable accommodation,” the ADA does not mandate the employer to take action. If an accommodation is requested, the ADA regulations require an employer to consider whether there are reasonable accommodations which would eliminate or reduce the risk so it would be safe for the employee to return to the workplace. An employer may only bar an employee from the workplace if the facts support the conclusion that the employee poses a significant risk of substantial harm to him or herself that cannot be reduced or eliminated by reasonable accommodation. It may be best for employers to be more flexible during this unprecedented time and think about ways in which to reduce the risk and set up reasonable accommodations for those concerned about contracting the virus.
The ADA also mandates privacy of employee medical information. The CDC advises that if an employee is confirmed to have COVID-19, employers should inform fellow employees of their possible exposure to COVID-19 but maintain confidentiality as required by the ADA.
The previous sections have discussed the legal perils for businesses reopening. This Act focuses on what employers must do in the unfortunate event where they must lay off workers going forward.
The Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (“WARN Act”) typically applies to workers at companies with at least 100 employees who have worked at least 20 hours a week for more than 6 of the past 12 months. A covered employer must provide at least 60 days written notice prior to a plant closing or a mass layoff.
The 60-day notice is not required when a mass layoff is caused by unforeseeable business circumstances, natural disasters, and because of faltering companies. “As much notice as is practicable” must still be given. Although it is likely the case, it is unclear about whether COVID-19 will qualify as an exception to the 60-day notice. Two former Hooters workers recently filed a class action alleging the company violated the WARN Act. It is anticipated this case will fall within the unforeseen business circumstances exception, but employers should still be cognizant of the WARN Act notice requirements if layoffs are anticipated further down the road due to a slow recovery. Additionally, the WARN Act does not apply to temporary layoffs lasting less than six months. However, it will constitute a layoff where a WARN notice may be required if those furloughed employees are kept out of work for longer than six months.
Most states, as well as the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (“OHSA”), have implemented guidance on reopening. The city of Cedar Rapids, Iowa has also created a business reopening guide. Employers have a general duty under OHSA to maintain safe workplaces. However, this guidance put forth by OHSA is not a standard or a regulation and creates no new legal obligations. It is unclear how state-imposed protocols will be enforced. What is clear is that businesses not following the protocols may face some negative attention. Most recently, there was a report that Mark Cuban hired “secret shoppers” to go to retail stores and restaurants throughout Dallas. It was discovered that 96% of the businesses were non-compliant of Texas’s minimum standard health protocols.
There are discussions that the next stimulus bill will contain some sort of liability shield for businesses reopening. However, businesses should not be waiting for Congress to be their saving grace on this matter. While employers would be wise to review all laws they need to follow and update best practices to mitigate their chances of being sued for Negligence, assuming a broad liability shield is not passed, businesses should not view this period as a time to do the least amount of compliance necessary. There are varying opinions on the severity of this novel virus, but those companies that are being proactive in opening, in a safe and responsible, way have been praised by leaders in the business community and are seeing a correspondingly positive jump in their stock prices. Small businesses should take notice of this reaction and do everything they can to create a safe environment for their employees and customers, as it is becoming evident, especially through this pandemic, that those companies which are willing to adapt to the times are those that will be successful in the long-term.
This material is not intended, nor should it be construed or relied upon, as legal advice. The opinions expressed are those of the individual authority, they may not reflect the opinions of the firm. Your use of Day Rettig Martin, P.C. postings does NOT create an attorney-client relationship between you and Day Rettig Martin, P.C. or any of its attorneys. If specific legal information is needed, please retain and consult with an attorney of your own selection.
The Senate passed H.R. 748, which is titled as the CARES Act, on March 26 by a vote of 96-0. At the time of writing this, it sounds as if the House of Representatives have passed it as well. There are many issues discussed in this stimulus bill, but the most prevalent topic for small businesses is found in Section 1102 of the bill. It is titled “Paycheck Protection Program.”
The number of Americans filing for unemployment benefits jumped to 3.3 million for the week ending March 21 according to the Department of Labor. To put this figure into perspective, the number of unemployment claims filed for the week ending March 7 was 211,000, which was near a half-century low. Section 1102 of the CARES Act is meant to provide financing to small employers that retain their workforce during this historic economic slowdown.
Initial eligibility depends on the size of the employer. The loans would be available under 7(a) of the Small Business Administration for businesses with less than 500 employees. Sole proprietors, independent contractors, and self-employed individuals are also eligible to receive these loans. In evaluating the eligibility of a borrower for a covered loan, a lender is to consider whether the borrower was in operation on February 15, 2020 and had employees for whom the borrower paid salaries and payroll taxes.
The maximum loan amount is the lesser of a calculated amount and $10 million. The calculated amount results from the average monthly payroll costs for the 1-year period ending on the date the loan was made multiplied by 2.5. Payroll costs are defined under the bill as:
Notable exclusions of payroll costs include compensation of an individual employee in excess of an annual salary of $100,000, taxes imposed or withheld under chapter 21, 22, or 24 of the Internal Revenue Code during the time period of February 15, 2020 through June 30, 2020, qualified sick leave wages for which a credit is allowed, and qualified family leave wages for which a credit is allowed. Tony Nitti, a senior contributor with Forbes, provides an example to better illustrate calculating loan amounts permitted under this bill.
Rob’s Car Wash applies for a paycheck protection loan on May 1, 2020. The business has $1.2 million in payroll costs for the period May 1, 2019 through May 1, 2020, for a monthly average of $100,000. Rob’s car Wash is entitled to a loan the lesser of:
-$250,000 ($100,000 in average payroll costs * 2.5), or
-$10 million.
Allowable uses for loan proceeds during the covered period (February 15, 2020 – June 30, 2020) include payroll costs as defined above; costs related to continuation of group health care benefits during periods of paid sick, medical, or family leave, and insurance premiums; employee compensation; and payment of interest on any mortgage obligation, rent, utilities, and interest on any other debt obligations that were incurred before the covered period.
Section 1106 of the bill describes the loan forgiveness provisions. An eligible recipient shall be eligible for forgiveness of indebtedness in an amount equal to the sum of the following costs incurred and payments made during the covered period:
Mr. Nitti provides another example covering the forgiveness aspects of the bill.
In the first 8 weeks (covered period) after the business borrows the $250,000, the business pays $200,00 in payroll costs, mortgage interest, and utility payments. Rob’s Car Wash is eligible to have $200,000 of the $250,000 loan forgiven.
The bill also provides that any amount forgiven would be excluded from gross income for purposes of taxation. Assuming that the workers’ salaries aren’t materially cut, then the amount of forgiveness generally can be limited by dividing the number of employees employed during 2020’s covered period (February 15, 2020 – June 30, 2020) over the number of those employed during last year’s same time period. In other words, a greater amount of the loan will be forgiven if workers aren’t laid off. An exception exists if workers are rehired before June 30, 2020.
A recipient seeking loan forgiveness needs to submit to the lender:
The bill requires lenders to make a decision no later than 60 days after receiving the application for loan forgiveness. Even if your business’ circumstances make it such that the amount of forgiveness will be slim to none, the interest rate for the loan can’t exceed 4% and payment is deferred for a period between 6 months to a year. Guidance and regulations will be issued within 30 days of enactment of the bill which will provide greater clarity on some provisions.
The government is forcing employers to shut their doors in order to combat the coronavirus. This decision hurts small businesses in a tremendous way as they don’t have the cash reserves nor the financing alternatives that larger companies enjoy. The historic spike in unemployment claims reflects this. The CARES Act gives a chance for small businesses to survive during this difficult period while providing loan forgiveness options for those able to keep their workforce employed.
Small businesses, including sole proprietors, independent contractors, and self-employed individuals, could consult their accountants and lenders about how the CARES Act may benefit them. Merle Haggard’s “If We Make It Through December” song is reminiscent of today’s state. The government may have just given the small businesses a chance to make it through the summer, in which case they will reemerge stronger than ever once the inevitable recovery occurs.
This material is not intended, nor should it be construed or relied upon, as legal advice. The opinions expressed are those of the individual authority, they may not reflect the opinions of the firm. Your use of Day Rettig Martin, P.C. postings does NOT create an attorney-client relationship between you and Day Rettig Martin, P.C. or any of its attorneys. If specific legal information is needed, please retain and consult with an attorney of your own selection.
© Day Rettig Martin, P.C. | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
150 1st Ave. N.E., Suite 415 | Cedar Rapids, IA 52401 | info@drpjlaw.com | (319) 365-0437