With summer in full swing, Ohio’s poor planting season won’t dampen the desires of those who want to use farmland for recreational activities like fishing or riding ATVs.  And while we worry over the washouts in so many farm fields, an archaeological buff recently explained that those wash outs provide a good opportunity to find arrowheads and other relics.  The fact that a field wasn’t planted didn’t stop a hot air balloon operator from asking a farmer if he could land in the unplanted field recently.   Even when the land is not highly productive, Ohio farmland is always appealing to recreational enthusiasts for these and other types of recreational activities.

But what if a farmer doesn’t want recreational enthusiasts on the property or doesn’t want the risk of potential liability for a recreational user?  A few of our resources provide guidance for these situations, which we can address in two important questions:

1. Do you not want people engaging in recreational activities on your farm?  If so, then take a look at our law bulletin on The Do’s and Don’ts of Dealing with Trespassers on the Farm.  If you don’t give a person permission to come onto the farm for recreational purposes, the person is trespassing if he or she chooses to enter the property without your permission.  But be aware that a landowner can’t intentionally put a trespasser in harm’s way and in certain situations, can be liable for a trespasser who suffers harm on the property.  Know the legal rules for dealing with trespassers so that you can protect your property without risking liability.  We explain these rules and situations in the law bulletin.
2. Are you okay with letting a person use your farm for recreational activities?  If so, you’ll want to read our law bulletin on Okay to Play:  Ohio Recreational User Statute Limits Liability for Hunters, Snowmobilers, and More.  Ohio’s Recreational User Statute offers immunity to landowners who allow recreational uses, but only if the landowner meets the four conditions of the law.  A landowner of nonresidential premises who gives permission to a person to engage in recreational activities without charging a fee doesn’t have the traditional legal duty to keep the recreational user safe from harm.  Our law bulletin explains each of the statute’s important conditions in detail so that a landowner can qualify for its liability protection.

Like the weather, managing the risk of recreational users and trespassers on the farm is a constant challenge for farmers.  But unlike the weather, a landowner can effectively control this type of risk.  When someone shows up to fish, ride ATVs, hunt arrowheads or land a balloon on the farm, be ready by having a good understanding of the laws that apply to recreational activities on the farm.

Since the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, the world of agriculture has been all abuzz about the potential for adding a new crop to the rotation—industrial hemp. (Our post on the hemp provisions in the Farm Bill is available here.) The passage of the bill caused states like Ohio, which did not previously implement hemp pilot projects in 2014, to scramble to introduce state legislation allowing hemp to be grown within their boundaries.  What is more, questions have arisen about how hemp and products derived from the plant should be regulated under the federal law. 

Ohio continues to tinker with its hemp bill

Ohio’s bill to legalize hemp is currently stalled in the Ohio House of Representatives. Speaker Larry Householder indicated that the House will not vote on the bill until September 2019.  The hemp bill was first introduced in the Ohio Senate in February, passed the Senate in March, and advanced to the House floor on June 4. The bill still contains a lot of the same language and provisions from when it was introduced in February, which you can read about in our post here.  However, since it was first introduced, numerous additions have been inserted into the language of the bill.

First, the original version of the hemp bill only required a license to cultivate hemp.  The version currently on the House floor also requires a license to process hemp into different products.  Moreover, the current version of the bill would make licenses for both cultivating and processing hemp valid for three years instead of five years.  The new language in the bill also creates a Hemp Marketing Program, which would fall under the same laws and regulations as the grain and soybean marketing programs.  Legally cultivated hemp would also be added to the list of agricultural uses permitted under the current agricultural use value (CAUV) for land, which would mean land used to grow hemp would qualify for a lower tax assessment. 

The most recent version of the bill also adds many more topics to the list for the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) to promulgate via regulation.  The new version tasks ODA with adding conditions for acquiring hemp cultivation licenses, such as experience, and procurement of equipment, facilities, a sufficient amount of land, and financial responsibility requirements.  ODA is charged with establishing a compulsory setback distance between hemp cultivation and medical marijuana cultivation, and with including regulatory language banning hemp cultivation or processing licensees from also cultivating or processing marijuana.  ODA must also establish requirements for recordkeeping and reporting for licensees.  These are just a few of the new regulations ODA is authorized to enact. 

The most recent bill, much like the first version, includes overarching prohibitions.  The current list of actions banned under the law is as follows:

• No person shall cultivate hemp without a hemp cultivation license issued by ODA;
• No person shall process hemp without a hemp processing license issued by ODA;
• A person who is licensed to cultivate or process hemp shall not violate any provision of the hemp law or regulations;
• A person subject to a corrective action plan issued by ODA shall not fail to comply with the plan;
• No person may transport hemp in violation of the hemp law or rules; and
• Any other requirements or procedures necessary to enforce the law. 

The most recent rendition of Ohio’s hemp bill would keep the provisions of the first version of the bill relating to negligent and reckless violations of the law, but new enforcement tools have been added.  Finally, the new and improved hemp bill includes an emergency clause, which would make the legislation immediately effective upon its passage in both houses and signature by the governor. 

FDA holds a hearing on the safety of CBD products

On May 31, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) held public hearing to gather information and scientific data about cannabis products, so that such information can be used for future regulatory oversight by the agency.  Industrial hemp is a type of cannabis plant, so the hearing included discussion of hemp and hemp-derived compounds, such as cannabidoil (CBD).  In particular, FDA was interested in whether different amounts of cannabis in a product would affect people differently, or cause safety concerns, whether there is any data to show that cannabis is safe in food and dietary supplements, whether there are, or if there need to be, industry standards in the manufacturing of cannabis products to ensure safety and quality, and how marketing and labeling should be used to address potential risks connected to using cannabis products.   The hearing did not result in any FDA decisions on cannabis products and their regulation, although it is an indicator that regulations will probably be coming soon.  This means that sales of CBD oil and other products made from hemp will have to follow FDA regulations in order to be manufactured and sold.  Information on the hearing is available here.  As we reported in one of our Ag Law Harvest posts, those people still interested in submitting their comments about cannabis and cannabis compounds to the FDA can do so until July 2. 

USDA releases its interpretation on transportation of hemp

In another federal development, on May 28, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) released a memo addressing the transportation of hemp.  The 2018 Farm Bill specified that states can ban hemp production and sales within their boundaries, but states cannot bar legally grown hemp from being transported through their state.  Since hemp regulations under the 2018 Farm Bill have not yet been promulgated, technically, there is no hemp that has been legally produced under the new law yet.  As a result, law enforcement in several states has continued to arrest people transporting hemp.  Furthermore, in at least one decision in Idaho, a court determined that it was illegal to transport hemp.  USDA released the memo to explain its disagreement with such interpretations.

In its memo, USDA says that the language decriminalizing hemp in the 2018 Farm Bill was “self-executing,” so it is no longer illegal to possess hemp or THC from hemp. USDA further asserts that hemp grown under pilot programs allowed under the 2014 Farm Bill can be legally transported across state lines because the 2018 Farm Bill did not immediately repeal the pilot programs.  USDA argues that this means that the hemp grown under 2014 pilot programs is legally produced, can be legally possessed, and therefore can be legally transported across state lines under the new Farm Bill.  

It is important to note that USDA’s memo is meant as guidance to the states, and is legally persuasive, but not legally binding.  This means a person could theoretically still be arrested for transporting hemp through a state, and the courts may or may not uphold the state’s decision.  After the federal regulations under the 2018 Farm Bill are in place, however, there will be less wiggle room for states to carry out their own interpretations, which will likely but an end to this controversy. 

What does it all mean?

While the regulation of hemp products, the transportation of hemp, and the legality of hemp in certain states may still be in question, all of this activity means that the state and federal governments are attempting to work all the kinks out.  Over time, the rules regarding how to produce, process, sell, and transport hemp, will likely become more defined and clear.  In the meantime, those interested in legally growing and processing hemp will have to play a waiting game. 

Have you ever sent an email or text message that seemed perfectly clear to you, but the recipient read it differently than you had intended?  It happens all the time in everyday life.  We know what we mean in our head, but the message we send contains ambiguities.  While we can hopefully fix ambiguities in an email or text message quickly, wills can present a different story. 

Once a person has passed away, fixing an ambiguity in a will is not easy because the best person to ask about intent cannot be called to testify.  Unfortunately, many families learn about the problems posed by ambiguities the hard way.

Take a recent example from Mahoning County.  In April, an Ohio appellate court upheld a probate court’s decision on how to distribute the assets of a Salem area farmer (“the farmer”).  This happened five years after the farmer passed away, and after two appeals of his estate.  He had a will, but it contained an ambiguity that resulted in years of litigation and delayed closure. 

His will made one specific bequest, and the rest of his property would go into a general pot for his named beneficiaries to divide among themselves as they or the executor saw fit.  The specific bequest read, “I give, devise, and bequeath to my brother […], the real estate at […] together with all contents of said real estate, if owned by me at the time of my death.”  The court had no problem with the real estate because the will provided an address; however, what did the will mean by “all contents of said real estate”?

At the time of the farmer’s death, the real estate contained a residence, family heirlooms, valuables, household goods, farm equipment, and vehicles.  The brother argued that the specific bequest included farm equipment and vehicles because of their physical presence on the real estate.  The general beneficiaries disagreed, believing that the bequest applied to pieces of personal property like heirlooms within the house.  Looking only at the will, the probate court agreed with the general beneficiaries.  The brother appealed the decision.

The appellate court viewed “all contents of said real estate” as ambiguous, and sent the case back to the probate court to re-examine the will.  The law generally disfavors testimony about what a decedent intended because the law assumes that the will provides the best evidence of what the decedent wanted.  When a court finds an ambiguity in a will, it may consider evidence beyond the will, such as testimony or other documents; however, the law considers this evidence less authoritative because it is not directly from the decedent.

After the first appeal, the brother and attorney who drafted the farmer’s will testified in probate court about conversations with the farmer before he passed away.  The brother claimed that conversations with his brother about ideas to grow the farm meant that the farm equipment should go to him; however, the attorney claimed that the farmer intended only for the brother to receive family heirlooms within the house.  The court believed the farmer’s attorney, and again decided that the specific bequest did not include the equipment.

For a second time, the brother appealed the probate court’s decision.  This time the appellate court was satisfied with the probate court’s actions and upheld the probate court’s interpretation of the will.  Click HERE to read the court’s opinion, which is cited as Bogar v. Baker, 2019-Ohio-1762 (7th Dist.).

It took the family in the Bogar case five years to have a legal determination of what their loved one meant in his will.  One clause resulted in lots of costly litigation, not to mention the stresses on the family.

No family wants a contentious probate.  Losing a loved one is hard enough without having to go to court to fully litigate the contents of a will.  Fortunately, this is a problem that can be avoided, or at least minimized, with an effective plan. 

Here are some tips to minimize ambiguities in your will:

• Identify who you want to have specific pieces of your real and personal property.  For personal items such as family heirlooms, antiques, and art, you may leave a directive that names specifically which person receives what items.
• Read through your will.  Does it make sense to you?  Does it sound like what you want to happen?
• Consider showing your will to your executor and ask what he or she thinks your will says.  How would the executor carry out your will if you were gone today?  If he or she says something that you did not intend, you can still fix your will to more clearly align it with your wishes.
• If you are concerned about beneficiaries challenging your will, you can include a no-contest clause that gives the executor final authority to interpret how to distribute your estate and penalize beneficiaries who challenge that distribution.  When included in a will, these clauses often prevent a beneficiary who challenges a will from receiving any property from the estate.

These tips do not guarantee a challenge-free probate process, but can help make your will as clear as possible.  If a question about your intent would still arise, having a couple of witnesses who can attest to your wishes will help the court get as close to your wishes as possible.  However, this requires you to tell each of these people the same thing and in a clear manner.  If you make any changes, you need to communicate that to your confidants.

Stay tuned in the next couple of months for new resources from our team about estate and business transition planning.  Until then, take a moment to review your estate plan!

Sparse dry weather conditions haven't dampened concerns about the extent of agricultural water quality problems we may see when summer weather finally arrives.   Despite the weather, harmful algal bloom (HAB) predictions for the summer are already out and are one important  measure of water quality impacts that are attributed to agriculture.   As HABs arise, so too do the questions about what is being done  to reduce HABs and other water quality impacts resulting from agricultural production activities.  We set out to answer these questions by examining key players in the water quality arena:  the states. 

In our new national report, State Legal Approaches to Reducing Water Quality Impacts from the Use of Agricultural Nutrients on Farmland, we share the results of research that examines how states are legally responding to the impact of agricultural nutrients on water quality.  After examining state laws, regulations and policies across the country, we can make several observations about state responses to the agricultural water quality issue.  First, more activity occurs in states that are near significant water resources such as the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, Mississippi River and coastal regions.  States in those areas have more legal solutions in place to address nutrient impacts.  Next, nearly all states rely heavily on nutrient management planning as a tool for reducing agricultural nutrient impacts on water quality.  We also note that there is an absence of monitoring, bench marking, and data collection requirements in the laws that address agricultural nutrient management and water quality.  Finally, many states have piecemeal, reactionary approaches rather than an organized statewide strategy accompanied by a locally-driven governance structure.

As we conducted our research, two types of approaches quickly emerged:  mandatory and voluntary.  Mandatory approaches are  those that require specific actions or inactions by persons who use nutrients on agricultural lands, while voluntary approaches allow a user of agricultural nutrients to decide whether to engage in programs and practices that relate to water quality, with or without incentives for doing so.  Because we could identify mandatory approaches through statutory and administrative codes, we were able to compile the laws into a database.  Our compilation of Mandatory Legal Approaches to Agricultural Nutrient Management is available on the National Agricultural Law Center's website. 

We classified the state mandatory approaches into three categories:

1.  Nutrient management planning is the most common mandatory tool used by the states.  All but two states mandate nutrient management planning, but the laws vary in terms of who must have or prepare a nutrient management plan (NMP).  In the report, we provide examples of states that require NMPs for animal feeding operations, those that require NMPs only in targeted areas, those that require all operators to have an NMP, and those that require preparers of NMPs to be certified.

2.  Nutrient application restrictions are becoming increasingly common across the states, but also vary by type of restrictions.  In the report, we categorize four types of nutrient application restrictions and present the combination of restrictions in place in five states across the country:

---Weather condition restrictions

---Setback and buffer requirements

---Restrictions on method of application

---Targeted area restrictions

3.  Certification of nutrient applicators is an approach used by 18 states, but state laws differ in terms of who must obtain certification.  Some states require only animal feeding operations and commercial "for hire" applicators to be certified, while others extend certification to private landowners, users of chemigation equipment, or those in targeted sensitive areas.  We provide examples of each type of certification approach.

The number and types of voluntary approaches to reducing agricultural nutrient impacts on water quality is extensive and more than we could identify and gather into a state compilation.  In our report, however, we present examples of four types of voluntary approaches states are taking:

1.  Technical assistance in the form of technical expertise and informational tools.

2.  Economic incentives such as cost share programs, tax credits and water quality trading programs.

3.  Legal protections for those who engage in nutrient reduction efforts.

4.  Research and education programs that aim to increase understanding of the problem and expand the knowledge base of those who use and work with nutrients.

Please read our report, available here, to learn more about legal approaches states are taking in response to concerns about the impact of agricultural nutrients on water quality.  We produced the report with funding from the USDA National Agricultural Library in partnership with the National Agricultural Law Center.