To amend sections 109.25, 1715.51, and 5813.06 and to enact sections 1715.551, 1715.552, 1715.553, 1715.554, 1715.555, 1715.556, 1715.557, 1715.558, and 1715.559 of the Revised Code to establish the scope and procedures for a civil action when an institution violates a restriction in an endowment agreement.
HB751 creates a new statutory framework for enforcing restrictions in endowment agreements involving state institutions of higher education and related charitable institutions. The bill defines key terms such as benefactor, benefactor representative, endowment agreement, and endowment fund, and it specifies that these agreements must involve a benefactor’s transfer of property for the use or benefit of a state university or similar institution subject to stated restrictions on management, investment, spending, or purpose.
The bill authorizes a benefactor or designated representative to notify the Ohio Attorney General’s charitable law section if an institution violates an endowment restriction. The attorney general may then bring an action to enforce the agreement, and if the issue is not resolved within 180 days after notice, the benefactor or representative may file suit for breach or declaratory relief. The bill limits private actions to declaratory and equitable relief, bars damages, attorney’s fees, and other monetary awards, and requires suits to be filed in the county where the benefiting state institution’s principal office is located. It also gives institutions and the benefiting state university the right to seek declaratory judgments in response to such claims.
HB751 also amends existing law governing the attorney general’s role in charitable trust proceedings by making the attorney general a necessary party in actions to enforce express terms of an endowment agreement. It further clarifies that the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act does not control the interpretation of these new endowment-agreement enforcement provisions, and if an institutional trust fund falls within both statutory schemes, the new endowment-agreement provisions govern instead.
The bill’s impact would be to create an express cause of action and procedural rules for disputes over restricted charitable gifts to higher education institutions, while preserving a central oversight role for the attorney general. It would likely affect benefactors, university foundations, charitable institutions, estate representatives, and institutions administering restricted endowment funds, especially where donors want to ensure that gift restrictions are honored after the transfer of funds.
Because the bill was only introduced and no committee testimony or votes are available, there is no recorded public sentiment in the provided materials. The structure of the bill suggests a policy preference for donor enforcement rights and clearer remedies for misuse of restricted endowment funds, but also a limitation on private recovery to non-monetary relief. Potential contention would likely center on whether benefactors should have standing to sue, the 180-day waiting period, the restriction on damages and fees, and the bill’s interaction with existing charitable trust and institutional fund law.
The bill would amend Ohio’s charitable trust and institutional fund statutes to add a new enforcement mechanism for endowment agreements tied to state institutions of higher education. It expands the attorney general’s mandatory participation in certain charitable proceedings, creates new civil causes of action and venue rules, and overrides conflicting application of the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act where an institutional trust fund also qualifies as an endowment fund under the bill.
No committee discussion or votes are provided, and the bill is listed as introduced in the House Judiciary Committee. As a result, there is no documented legislative sentiment in the record supplied. The bill’s text indicates a generally pro-enforcement, donor-protection approach, but the absence of testimony or vote history means support and opposition cannot be measured from the available materials.
The most likely points of contention are the scope of donor or benefactor standing, the requirement to wait 180 days after notifying the attorney general before filing suit, and the bill’s prohibition on damages, court costs, attorney’s fees, or other monetary relief. Another possible issue is the bill’s prioritization of the new endowment-agreement provisions over existing institutional fund law, which could raise concerns for universities, foundations, and charitable administrators about administrative flexibility and litigation exposure.