MCA Debt Relief Options in Ohio

Ohio’s usury framework and consumer protection law give MCA borrowers meaningful tools to challenge agreements that function as high-interest loans regardless of their labels. The state’s restrictions on cognovit notes add an additional layer of protection.

Ohio’s small business economy — manufacturing, healthcare, construction, retail, technology, and professional services across Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton, and smaller markets — generates significant demand for working capital. MCA companies target Ohio businesses with products that carry costs far exceeding traditional financing options, and the stacking of multiple advances is common.

Ohio’s legal framework provides several avenues for MCA borrowers seeking relief, including a usury statute with criminal penalties, a consumer protection law with a private right of action and treble damages, and significant restrictions on cognovit provisions that limit the funder’s ability to obtain judgments without notice.

The Legal Landscape in Ohio

Ohio’s criminal usury statute, O.R.C. § 2905.21 et seq., applies to interest charges exceeding 8% per annum above the federal discount rate. The criminal usury threshold fluctuates with the federal rate but is consistently far below the effective APRs produced by recharacterized MCAs. Even at the most generous calculation of the threshold, recharacterized MCAs carrying effective rates of 100% or more exceed it by multiples.

Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practices Act, O.R.C. § 1345.01 et seq., prohibits unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable consumer and commercial sales practices. The statute provides for actual damages, attorney’s fees, and treble damages for knowing violations. The Act’s broad scope encompasses the marketing, solicitation, and servicing of MCA products. Deceptive representations about the cost of the advance, the availability of reconciliation, and the nature of the transaction are actionable under the CSPA. The treble damages provision for knowing violations provides significant financial leverage.

Ohio’s cognovit statute, O.R.C. § 2323.13, permits cognovit notes (confessions of judgment) only in certain commercial transactions and imposes specific requirements including a conspicuous warning in prescribed language. If the MCA’s cognovit clause does not meet Ohio’s specific statutory requirements, the confession of judgment may be unenforceable. Ohio courts have vacated cognovit judgments that fail to comply with the statute’s formal requirements, providing an additional avenue for challenge.

Recharacterization and Usury

The recharacterization analysis in Ohio follows the same national framework. If the MCA funder bore no genuine risk of loss — because the payments were fixed, the guarantee shifted the risk to the owner, and the reconciliation clause was ignored — the transaction is a loan. Ohio courts can apply the analytical framework developed in New York and other jurisdictions, adapted to Ohio’s specific statutory provisions.

When a recharacterized MCA’s effective APR exceeds Ohio’s criminal usury threshold, the agreement is subject to criminal penalties and civil consequences. Given that most recharacterized MCAs produce effective rates of 100% to 300%, the threshold is easily exceeded. The usury defense, combined with the CSPA’s treble damages for knowing violations, creates comprehensive legal exposure for the funder.

The recharacterization also affects the validity of the cognovit clause. If the underlying transaction is a loan rather than a purchase, the cognovit clause must comply with Ohio’s specific requirements for cognovit notes in lending transactions. A clause that was valid for a purchase agreement may be invalid for a loan, and the distinction created by recharacterization may render the judgment unenforceable.

Your Relief Options

Usury defense based on recharacterization. If the MCA is a loan in substance, Ohio’s usury statute applies. The criminal penalties and civil remedies create strong leverage for settlement and litigation.

Consumer Sales Practices Act claims with treble damages for knowing violations. Deceptive marketing, cost misrepresentation, reconciliation refusal, and illegal collection practices are actionable under the CSPA. The treble damages provision for knowing violations provides meaningful economic leverage that transforms the settlement calculus.

Cognovit challenge. If the funder filed a cognovit judgment that does not comply with Ohio’s statutory requirements, the judgment can be vacated. The challenge can void the judgment and require the funder to pursue its claims through conventional litigation.

DEFENSE TEAM SPOTLIGHT

Todd Spodek

Lead Attorney & Founder

Featured on Netflix's "Inventing Anna," Todd Spodek brings decades of high-stakes criminal defense experience. His aggressive approach has secured dismissals and acquittals in cases others deemed unwinnable.

NY Bar Admitted Multi-State Licensed Federal Courts

Meet the Full Team

Settlement negotiation leveraging usury exposure, CSPA treble damages claims, and cognovit challenges provides meaningful incentive for funders to resolve Ohio disputes at a significant discount. The combination of multiple legal theories creates comprehensive pressure that funders prefer to resolve through settlement rather than litigation.

Practical Steps

Gather your MCA agreement, payment records, and communications. Calculate the effective APR and compare it to Ohio’s usury threshold. If a cognovit judgment has been entered, review the judgment and the underlying cognovit clause for compliance with Ohio’s statutory requirements.

Consult an Ohio attorney experienced in commercial financing disputes. Ohio’s combination of usury law, the CSPA’s treble damages provision, and cognovit restrictions provides multiple avenues for relief. The optimal strategy depends on the specific terms of your agreement, the procedural posture of any existing judgment, and the funder’s conduct.

The timing of your response matters. If a cognovit judgment has been entered, the window to challenge it narrows with each passing day. If collection activity has begun, preemptive action is more effective than reactive defense. The combination of Ohio’s usury statute, the CSPA’s treble damages for knowing violations, and the cognovit restrictions creates a legal environment where the borrower’s position strengthens as the legal analysis deepens. The more the attorney examines the agreement, the funder’s conduct, and the effective rate, the more legal tools become available.