Business and Financial
A recent decision from the Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals involves a farm estate and a lawsuit. The facts are complex, but at its core, the case involves parents who owned and operated a sizeable farming operation and left their assets to their son and daughter. The court’s written analysis makes clear that the siblings do not get along, a factor that likely contributed significantly to their dispute. The case reflects a combination of complex estate planning, family tension, and the parents’ desire to exert control over assets after death. Any one of these factors can increase the risk of estate litigation; taken together, they make a lawsuit far more likely.
The parents’ estate plan, and the litigation that followed, involved all of the following:
- Multiple trusts
- Several LLCs holding farm assets
- Farm leases between entities and family members
- Trustees and trust protectors
- Allegations of self-dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, and lack of cooperation
This list illustrates both the complexity of the parents’ estate plan and the level of conflict between the heirs. While this was an uncommonly complicated plan, it may have been necessary given the parents’ assets, goals, and family circumstances. However, when estate plans become more complex, the potential for misunderstandings, administrative difficulties, and conflict also increases.
There are at least three lessons to be learned from this court case. First, estate plans of this level of complexity are sometimes necessary, particularly for large farming operations or families with unique goals. However, this case serves as a reminder that complexity comes at a cost. When multiple planning strategies and conditions are used with an already strained family relationship, the result can be confusion, administrative difficulties, and litigation. In some situations, a simpler estate plan may better serve both the family and the farm.
Second, complex estate plans can outrun the understanding of the families tasked with implementing them. In other words, does the family truly understand the plan and how it is intended to work over time? As with most things, simpler plans are generally easier to understand and administer. In some cases, attorneys may design technically sound plans that are not fully understood by their clients, increasing the risk of mistakes and conflict after the parents are gone.
The next lesson involves consideration for the non-farming heir. Before her death, the mother changed their estate plan to give the son, the farming heir, significant control over land the daughter was due to inherit. If the relationship between the siblings was already strained, placing one sibling in control of the other’s assets without notification was almost certain to magnify that tension.
Many farm transition plans give the farming heir disproportionate control over assets out of necessity. However, it is critical to consider the impact of that control on the non-farming heir. Was the non-farming heir informed of the extent of the farming heir’s control? In this case, it appears that the son was given control over the daughter’s assets as the result of a trust change that was not disclosed to the daughter, an omission that only added fuel to an already volatile situation. Additionally, if a non-farming heir’s assets are overly restricted within a trust or LLC, their practical value and usefulness can be greatly diminished.
The third lesson is closely related to the first: control from the grave has consequences. In this case, the parents clearly wanted to ensure that the farming heir continued the family farming operation—a common and understandable goal for farm families. To achieve that goal, however, their estate plan allowed little or no control for the daughter over the land she was to inherit.
During their lifetimes, parents are often able to referee disputes between children and maintain at least a measure of peace within the family. When the parents are gone, so too is the referee. Without their presence, the control that parents once exercised directly can manifest very differently after death. In this case, the parents’ attempt to control the operation and use of assets from beyond the grave appears to have caused the daughter significant distress and frustration, ultimately resulting in litigation.
As noted above, complex estate plans are sometimes necessary, and that may have been true in this case. However, whenever possible, farm transition plans should be designed with as much simplicity as circumstances allow. Planners should carefully consider the impact on non-farming heirs and recognize that post-death control mechanisms may not function as intended once the parents are no longer present. Families should ensure that they understand how their plan will work, that it minimizes the potential for family conflict, and that any post-death control is likely to be accepted by the heirs.
Working with an experienced attorney who regularly assists farm families is an important first step in reducing the risk of conflict in an estate or transition plan. A knowledgeable attorney can help design a plan that achieves the family’s goals while minimizing administrative difficulties and the potential for litigation. While no estate plan can completely eliminate the risk of conflict, careful planning and thoughtful design can significantly reduce it.
You can read the relevant court case here.
Every year, OSU Extension brings farm families together to tackle one of the most important, and often most difficult, tasks in agriculture: planning for the future of the family farm. Our “Planning for the Future of Your Farm” workshops help families navigate farm succession, estate planning, and strategies for ensuring that the farm continues across generations.
For 2025–2026, OSU Extension is offering three learning formats to meet the needs of busy farm families:
- A new asynchronous online course (work at your own pace)
- A live Zoom webinar series in March 2026
- In-person workshops across Ohio in 2025 & 2026
Whether you are beginning the planning process or fine-tuning an existing transition strategy, these programs provide critical information, tools, and structure to help families move forward.
Why Attend?
Transition planning is more than paperwork, it’s a family conversation about goals, legacy, and the future of the business. Our workshops challenge families to think strategically and communicate openly about succession, while providing the legal and financial tools necessary to make informed decisions.
Teaching the program are:
- David Marrison, OSU Extension Farm Management Field Specialist
- Robert Moore, Attorney/Research Specialist , OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program
Topics Covered
Throughout the workshop series and online course, participants will learn how to:
- Develop estate and succession planning goals
- Plan for the transition of management and control
- Communicate effectively and manage family conflict
- Understand legal tools and strategies for farm transition
- Build a professional advisory team
- Get personal and business affairs organized
Schedule and Registration
Registration for the online on-demand program is available here. Full access to the course videos and materials is $149.
The four-part live webinar series will take place on four evenings in March:
March 2, 9, 16 & 23, 2026
6:00–8:00 p.m. via Zoom
Cost: $99 per family
Register for the webinar series at https://farmoffice.osu.edu/PFF-workshops.
The times and locations of the in-person programs are:
- December 11 & 17, 2025 - Lorain County (6:00 to 9:00 p.m.)
- January 14 & 21, 2026 - Logan County (6:00 to 9:00 p.m.)
- February 9 & 16, 2026 - Muskingum County (6:00 to 9:00 p.m.)
- March 3 & 17, 2026 - Washington County (6:00 to 9:00 p.m.)
- March 18 & 26, 2026 - Morrow County (5:00 to 9:00 p.m.)
- December 1 & 8, 2026 - Madison County (6:00 to 9:00 p.m.)
Registration information for the in person workshops is at https://farmoffice.osu.edu/PFF-workshops
For more information or questions, contact David Marrison at Marrison.2@osu.edu or Robert Moore at moore.301@osu.edu.
Tags: planning for the future of your farm
Comments: 0
The holiday season often leaves us short on time, but we hope you’ll have the time to devote to December’s Farm Office Live webinar this Friday, December 12 at 10 a.m. The agenda includes two special guests: Joshua Strine with Purdue’s Center for Commercial Agriculture, who will explain Purdue’s web-based Crop Basis Tool that provides access to corn and soybean basis data for local market regions in the eastern corn belt and Dr. Robert Mullen with Heritage Cooperative, who’ll share his knowledge of fertilizer market information and prices. The Farm Office's Peggy Hall and Barry Ward will also cover legislative and tax updates, and the Farm Office team will overview upcoming winter programs you won’t want to miss.
Attending is a gift of education you can give yourself during this busy time, and one that will keep giving through the coming year. Here’s the complete December Farm Office Live line up:
- Purdue’s Crop Basis Tool with Joshua Strine of Purdue’s Center for Commercial Agriculture.
- Legislative Update from Peggy Hall of OSU’s Agricultural & Resource Law Program.
- Fertilizer Market Info and Historical Fertilizer Prices with Robert Mullen, Vice President of Agricultural Technology for Heritage Cooperative.
- Year End Tax Update from Barry Ward, OSU Income Tax Schools.
- Winter Programs and Classes – Highlighting information on the Farm Office team’s Basics of Grain Marketing course, Planning for the Future of Your Farm Workshops, Food Business Central course, Organic Grains Conference, and Farm On course.
If you’re not already registered for Farm Office Live, follow this link to register for the webinar series: go.osu.edu/farmofficelive. Use the same link to access replays of all of our Farm Office Live webinars.
A bill authorizing the capture and storage of carbon dioxide via underground storage wells has passed the Ohio House of Representatives. The nearly unanimous vote by the House now advances H.B. 170 to the Ohio Senate.
We’ve reported previously on the prospect of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) coming to Ohio. CCS is one part of a strategy to reduce airborne CO2 emissions. It’s of high interest to hard-to-abate emission sources, such as ethanol, steel, chemical, and concrete production facilities. Rather than reducing the CO2 in their emissions, CCS allows such sectors to capture CO2 from emissions and store the CO2 in pore spaces far beneath the land’s surface. But landowners must be willing to lease their “pore space” for CO2 storage. If passed, then, CCS legislation will create pore space leasing opportunities and challenges for Ohio landowners.
Refer to our Ag Law Blog posts explaining CCS and discussing how CCS requires landowners to lease “pore space.” We also reviewed the first CCS bills in Ohio, proposed last legislative session, in a third blog post. Those bills did not pass, and H.B. 170 represents a new version of the proposals, developed after additional consideration by interested parties.
What’s in H.B. 170?
H.B. 170 sets up a state regulatory framework that authorizes the storage of capture carbon dioxide into subsurface “pore space” via Class VI injection wells, which are regulated by the U.S. EPA under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act’s Underground Injection Control Program. The bill addresses several
- Agency authority and rules. Delegates regulatory authority over CCS to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management and directs the Chief to adopt rules that carry out the legislation.
- “Pore space” interests. Defines “pore space” as the subsurface cavities and voids that are suitable for use as storage areas for CO2, outlines procedures for severing and conveying pore space, clarifies the relationship between pore space, surface rights, and mineral interests, and limits the liability of pore space owners for the injection of CO2 into their pore space.
- CCS projects. Lays out the components of “carbon sequestration projects,” which includes “storage facilities” operated by “storage operators” who inject CO2 into pore space via injection wells.
- “Pooling” of pore space. Authorizes the pooling or “statutory consolidation” of pore space for carbon sequestration projects if the storage operator obtains the consent of owners of at least 70% of the pore space and establishes rights and responsibilities for statutory consolidation.
- Project completion and closure. Provides procedures for “certificates of project completion” that apply to the closure of storage facilities and a transfer of responsibility and liability to the State.
- Fees and penalties. Establishes fees for storage facilities and funds to pay for current and post-closure care program costs and sets civil and criminal penalties for violation of CCS regulations.
- Limitations on damages. Limits claims for damages dues to injection or migration of CO2 to claims that establish direct physical injury to persons, animals, or property, limits claims to diminution of value caused by the injection or migration and prohibits punitive damages in such cases.
What’s next for CCS?
The Ohio Senate now has its turn to consider H.B. 170. The Senate President referred the bill to the Senate Energy Committee, which already has a CCS bill before the committee. The Senate’s version of CCS, S.B. 136, was introduced last March but has not received any hearings.
S.B. 136 mirrors the version of H.B. 170 first introduced in the House. But amendments to H.B. 170 occurred in the House Natural Resources Committee that created differences between the two bills. It will be up to Energy Committee Chair Brian Chavez to determine which bill to advance, if any.
For a comparison of the original introduced bills (H.B. 170 and S.B. 136) and the substitute bill for H.B. 170 that passed the House of Representatives, refer to this synopsis by the Legislative Service Commission that highlights the differences.
H.B. 170 is a step toward “primacy”
Ohio is already on its way toward seeking approval from the U.S. EPA to regulate Class VI injection wells within the state, a concept referred to as “primacy.” State-based regulation of the well permitting program would speed up the permitting process for CCS, according to proponents of primacy. However, the state regulatory program must be at least as stringent as federal requirements before the U.S. EPA will delegate the Class VI program to the state. H.B. 170 and its resulting regulations will be reviewed by the U.S. EPA when Ohio submits its application for primacy to the U.S. EPA.
To date, only five other states have obtained primacy over Class VI wells. Six other states are currently in the process of applying for such approval. By obtaining primacy, Ohio could be ahead of many states in encouraging CCS development, proponents state.
Implications for Ohio landowners: pore space leasing
We’ve heard that some companies are already out with offers of “pore space leases” to Ohio landowners. Some are offering around $25 per acre for the right to use pore space for CCS. But now is the time for caution. The legislation is necessary to clarifying legal interests in pore space and how CCS development will occur in Ohio—both important issues landowners need to know before entering into pore space leases. A third important issue in need of clarification is the value of pore space, and it’s still too early to have firm answers to that question. Experience from oil and gas leasing teaches us, however, that early lease payment offers tend to be lower than later offers.
Landowners who want to move forward now on pore space leases, however, would be wise to work with an attorney. Some attorneys across the state are already reviewing and negotiating pore space leases on behalf of the landowners. Contact the agricultural law team for help with identifying attorneys knowledgeable in this area.
Watch for more resources on CCS and pore space leases coming to our program soon.
Tags: CCS, carbon capture and storage, carbon sequestration, class VI injection
Comments: 0
By: Carl Zulauf, Professor Emeritus, Ohio State University; and Eric Richer, Associate Professor and Field Specialist , Ohio State University Extension, October 2025
Net return to storing Ohio corn and soybeans since 1973 is examined. Cash storage of Ohio corn and soybeans after June is generally not profitable as prices decline on average and in a majority of years. Net returns to cash and futures hedged storage ending no later than June do not differ statistically from zero, indicating returns just cover total storage cost. Nevertheless, this findings is consistent with building on-farm storage because on-farm storage offers other opportunities to improve farm profits. They include faster harvest, thus less harvest loss, and more flexible post-harvest marketing, such as location of cash sales. Although not statistically different, net returns have generally been higher for storing Ohio soybeans than corn. This is consistent with soybeans’ more rapid growth in consumption. Hedged storage has the advantage of lower net return risk, especially at longer storage periods.
Ohio Corn Price Seasonal
Although Ohio cash corn price has averaged nearly the same in October ($3.02) and November ($3.03) since 1973, October is used as the harvest low price month. The decision in part reflects that October is the harvest low for soybeans (see next section). Average Ohio cash corn price increased through June, peaking at 117% of its October price (see Figure 1). Price increased the most (4 percentage points) from November to December. It declined on average after June. Largest decline was from August to September. Ohio cash price was higher in roughly one-third of the years after June, specifically, 37%, 31%, and 30% of the years for July, August, and September, respectively. For a brief discussion of data sources and procedures, see Data Note 1.
Ohio Soybean Price Seasonal
The Ohio soybean and corn cash price seasonal are largely similar (see Figures 2 and 1). Average cash price is highest in June. Largest average decline is from August to September. Soybean cash price did increase more consistently from its October low, specifically one to two percentage points per month through May and had a lower and less definitive peak. Average soybean price for June and July all rounded to 113% of the October low. Corn’s peak was 117% in June. Ohio soybean’s August and September cash price both exceeded its July price in 22% of the years.
Net Return to Storing Ohio Corn and Soybeans
Net return to the two most common storage strategies, cash storage and storage hedged with futures, is examined for storage periods from October (lowest cash price) to June (highest cash price). Net cash storage return per bushel equals (a) Ohio cash price for the end-of-storage month (for example, December) minus (b) October Ohio cash price minus (c) interest opportunity cost of storing instead of selling at harvest minus (d) physical storage cost at commercial facilities to keep the crop in useable condition. Net futures hedged storage return per bushel equals (a) net return to cash storage plus (b) change in futures price over the storage period minus (c) cost of trading futures. Since price and storage cost have increased over time, net return is expressed as a percent of the October price. Data Note 2 further discusses the procedures and data sources.
Average net return to cash storage expressed relative to the October price does not differ statistically from $0 for both corn and soybeans for all 8 storage periods. Thus, from a statistical perspective, returns just cover total storage cost. However, average net return above total cash storage cost is close to or exceeds 3% of October price for Ohio corn stored to February and beyond and for Ohio soybeans stored to March and beyond (see Figure 3). Such returns are high enough to perhaps have economic meaning even if they lack statistical significance. Return to storage is nominally higher for soybeans than corn, with soybean’s advantage increasing for storage beyond March.
Net return to futures hedged storage generally averages close to $0, especially as the storage period lengthens. The advantage of hedged storage is that risk of net return variation is lower for it than cash storage. This advantage becomes notable for storage beyond January (see Figure 4). Combining Figures 4 and 3 suggest that the higher average net return for cash storage beyond January can be viewed as a compensation for the higher risk of cash storage beyond January.
Summary Discussion
Cash storage of Ohio corn and soybeans after June is generally not profitable as prices decline on average and in a majority of years.
Net return to cash and futures hedged storage Ohio corn and soybeans that ends no later than June does not differ statistically from zero. Stated alternatively, on average, returns to storage just cover the total cost of storage.
The preceding finding is however consistent with building on-farm storage since on-farm storage provides other opportunities to improve farm profitability. They include faster harvest due to longer harvest days plus less travel and wait time in getting a crop stored. Faster harvest can reduce harvest loss due to inclement weather. On-farm storage also gives more flexibility to post-harvest marketing, especially the location of cash sales.
Although not statistically significant, return to cash storage has been nominally higher for Ohio soybeans than corn. This finding should not be surprising as consumption has increased percentage wise much more for soybeans than corn. As price increases to stimulate future soybean production to satisfy growing demand, storage is more likely to be profitable.
A clear advantage of hedged storage is a lower risk of net return variation than cash storage, especially over longer storage periods. This finding was expected since it is well documented in the literature.
Data Notes:
- Cash price in this study is the average monthly price paid to Ohio farmers by first handlers as reported by USDA, NASS (US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service). Starting the study with the 1974 marketing year postdates the early 1970s increase in price variability (Kenyon, Jones, and McGuirk). The last complete marketing year is 2024.
- Physical storage cost is from USDA, Commodity Credit Corporation through the 2005 marketing year. Thereafter, it is from an Ohio country elevator, cross checked with another Ohio first delivery point. Opportunity storage cost is measured using the October secondary market 6 month US Treasury bill rate, discount basis. Six months is the Treasury bill maturity closest to the 8 month October-June storage period examined in this study. Source is the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. The Chicago July futures contract is used for the storage hedge. It is the first corn and soybean futures contract maturity after June. For each month, average July futures settlement price is calculated using prices from Barchart.com. Hedge storage cost is brokerage fee plus liquidity cost for the futures trade. Brokerage fee is assumed to be $50 for a round trip buy and sell of a futures contract based on inquiries of brokers. Liquidity cost arises since the price at which a futures trade is executed usually differs from the price when the trade is placed (i.e. execution is not instantaneous). Based on Brorsen and Thompson and Waller, liquidity cost is $25 per futures trade made before February 1 and $12.50 thereafter. Liquidity cost is less after February 1 since trading volume increases as contract maturity nears. For an in-depth discussion of storage and trading cost, see Zulauf and Kim (2020).
References and Data Sources
Barchart.com. 2025. Futures price data. https://www.barchart.com/
Brorsen, B. W. 1989. Liquidity Costs and Scalping Returns in the Corn Futures Market. Journal of Futures Markets 9(3): 225-236.
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. September 2025. Federal Reserve Economic Data. https://fred.stlouisfed.org
Kenyon, D., E. Jones, and A. McGuirk. 1993. Forecasting Performance of Corn and Soybean Harvest Futures Contracts. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75(May): 399-407.
Ohio Country Elevator. 2006-2025. Personal inquiry of annual corn and soybean storage rates.
Thompson, S. R. and M. L. Waller. 1987. The Execution Cost of Trading in Commodity Futures Markets. Food Research Institute Studies Vol. XX, No. 2: 141-163.
US Department of Agriculture, Commodity Credit Corporation. 1978-2007. Annual personal inquiry.
US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. September 2025. QuickStats. http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/
Are you a new owner of farmland? Whether inheriting or purchasing farmland for the first time, a new farmland owner must choose what to do with the land. Farm it, sell it, lease it, preserve it — all are viable options that require an understanding of economic considerations and legal requirements.
Our upcoming webinar for the National Agricultural Law Center can help. Join me and Robert Moore on October 15, 2025 at Noon EST as we present "So Now You Own a Farm: A Beginner's Guide to Farmland Ownership."
Based on our recently published Beginner’s Guide to Farmland Ownership, this webinar will provide practical insights and strategies on new farmland ownership. We'll cover topics such as:
- Estimating the value of farmland;
- How to sell, lease, manage, or preserve the land;
- Protecting the farmland from risk.
The session can help both new farmland owners and the professionals who advise them better navigate the responsibilities, options, and decision-making that comes with farmland ownership. Register for the free online webinar at https://nationalaglawcenter.org/webinars/beginners-farmland-ownership/.
Tags: beginning farm, beginning farmer, farmland ownership, new farm, new farmer
Comments: 0
The One Big Beautiful Bill (HB 1) has received both praise and criticism from many commentators. However, one change that is clearly positive for farms is the provision allowing LLCs, corporations, and other liability-limiting entities to be eligible for multiple payments. This eliminates the need for some farms to choose between multiple FSA payments and unnecessary liability exposure.
Under the old rules, which remained in place through previous Farm Bills, LLCs and corporations were treated as a single "person" for FSA payment limitation purposes. This meant they were capped at one annual payment limit, historically $125,000 for programs such as Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC), regardless of the number of owners or shareholders involved. To access multiple payment limitations, many farms had to operate as general partnerships, which increased exposure to personal liability.
In contrast, the new rules introduced by HB 1 treat LLCs and S corporations as pass-through entities, similar to partnerships. This allows each actively engaged member or shareholder to qualify for a separate payment limit, now inflation-adjusted to a base of $155,000 per person or entity.
An Example
The Jones family has five members actively involved in their farming operation. They farm a large number of acres and their FSA payments often exceed one payment limitation. To ensure eligibility for multiple payments, they operated as a general partnership. However, Ohio law holds each partner personally liable for the actions of the partnership. The Jones’ accepted the additional liability exposure in order to have the opportunity to capture multiple FSA payments.
Under HB 1, the Jones family can now establish an LLC for their operation. Assuming each family member is actively engaged in farming, the LLC will be eligible for up to five payment limitations. Additionally, the LLC will provide liability protection for the owners.
Safeguards Against Abuse
Importantly, these changes do not create loopholes for fraud or misuse of federal funds. The core requirement remains unchanged: each individual claiming a separate payment limit must be "actively engaged in farming," meaning they must provide contributions of labor or management and capital in proportion to their share of the operation.
FSA enforces this through detailed documentation, which tracks entity details, ownership attribution, and compliance with adjusted gross income (AGI) caps. Payments are attributed proportionally based on ownership levels to prevent exceeding limits, and the agency retains authority to audit and review operations to ensure genuine farming activity. These safeguards protect taxpayer dollars while offering flexibility to legitimate farm businesses.
Converting Partnerships to LLCs
For farmers currently operating as partnerships, this is an opportune time to consider converting to an LLC to take advantage of the new rules. The process in Ohio is relatively straightforward. File a Certificate of Conversion with the Ohio Secretary of State, which typically costs $99 and can be submitted online or by mail. Include details such as the entity's original name, the new LLC name, and the effective date of conversion. Once approved, often within a few business days, update your FSA records and other registrations. This process preserves continuity while adding liability protection, making it a practical upgrade for many Ohio farms. Be sure to consult with your attorney before making the change.
The Legal Shift
In the legal world, there has historically been only one main reason for a farmer, or any other business owner, to operate as a partnership instead of an LLC. That reason was to capture multiple FSA payments. The recent change in HB 1 now allows farmers to operate as LLCs and avoid unnecessary liability exposure or overly complex business structures.
September 1 is fast approaching, and it’s an especially important date for landowners who lease cropland under an existing lease that does not address when or how the lease terminates. In those situations, September 1 is the deadline established by Ohio law for a landowner to notify a tenant that the landowner wants to terminate the lease. If the landowner does not provide notice by September 1, the tenant operator has a legal argument that the lease continues for another lease term because it was not terminated by the deadline.
Here are a few important provisions about the statutory termination law that are important to understand:
- The September 1 termination date applies only to leases that do not address when or how the lease ends--such as a verbal lease or a written lease that lacks ending date or termination provisions. If a crop lease does include a termination date or a deadline for giving notice of termination, the statutory termination date law does not affect or change those agreed upon terms.
- The September 1 termination date applies only applies to crop leases. It does not apply to leases for pasture, timber, farm buildings, horticultural buildings, or leases solely for equipment.
- To meet the law's requirements, a landowner must give the notice of termination in writing and deliver it to the tenant operator by hand, mail, fax, or email on or before September 1. While the law does not specify what the termination must say, we recommend including the date of the notice, the identity of the lease property being terminated, and the date the lease terminates. The statutory termination law states that the date of termination will be the earlier of the end of harvest or December 31, unless the parties agree otherwise.
- Tenant operators of leased land are not subject to the September 1 termination deadline—the law applies only to the landowner. Even so, it’s important for tenant operators to understand the new law because the law intends to protect a tenant if a landowner attempts to terminate a lease after September 1. In those instances, the law gives the tenant a legal argument that the lease should continue for another term because the termination notice was provided past the statutory termination deadline.
Put leases in writing to avoid the statutory termination law. This law illustrates the importance of having a written farm lease that includes termination and renewal provisions. The parties can agree in advance when the lease terminates or renews as well as how and when to provide notice of termination or renewal of the lease. Clearly written and detailed terms provide certainty for both parties and reduce the risk of lost inputs, lost rents and profits, and litigation due to a “late” termination. For resources on written farm leases, visit aglease101.org and refer to our farmland leasing resources in our ag law library.
Read more about the statutory termination law in our law bulletin and refer to Ohio's “termination of agricultural leases” law in Section 5301.71 of the Ohio Revised Code.
Tags: leases; farm leases; verbal leases; statutory termination; september 1
Comments: 0
by: Carl Zulauf, Seungki Lee, and David Marrison, Ohio State University, August 2025
2024 crop year payments for corn and soybeans are estimated for ARC-CO (Agriculture Risk Coverage – County version) using August 2025 estimates of 2024 crop year prices from USDA, FSA (US Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency) (https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/programs/arc-plc/program-data) and estimates of county yields from USDA, RMA (Risk Management Agency) (https://webapp.rma.usda.gov/apps/RIRS/SCOYieldsRevenuesPaymentIndicators.aspx). Legislation requires FSA to give primacy to RMA yields when determining ARC-CO payment, but FSA can also consider other factors when determining ARC-CO county yields.
Our next report will be the final FSA payment rates for 2024 crop year corn and soybeans. They are expected to be released in October 2025. They could differ notably from these estimates. Crop year prices and county yields are not final. Moreover, they currently in a range where small changes can cause large changes in ARC-CO payments. Use these estimated payments with caution.
August 2025 Estimates of 2024 Crop Year Payments:
- ARC-CO: Corn and soybean payments are expected for some Ohio counties. ARC-CO is a revenue program and thus includes yield and price (see two sections below). 2024 Ohio weather was highly variable. County yields were thus variable, making payments variable. Estimates of payment per base acre vary from $0 (42 counties) to $81 (Ross) for corn base and from $0 (18 counties) to $60 (Mercer) for soybean base (see appended maps). These estimates include the 85% payment factor (i.e. 15% payment reduction factor). Also appended are maps of county gross revenue (estimated price times estimated yield) plus estimated ARC-CO pay rate per base acre. They illustrate that ARC-CO payments are countercyclical to low market revenue. Higher revenue/yields are almost always preferred to an ARC-CO payment. Note, some counties have irrigated and non-irrigated base acres. Payment estimates are for non-irrigated base since dryland production is far more common in Ohio. ARC-CO payments for wheat are now final, although they will not be made until October. Only three counties will receive ACR-CO payments per base acre of wheat: Adams ($4.00), Lorain ($13.60), and Scioto ($29.50).
- PLC: No PLC payment is expected for corn and soybeans. Projected US crop year price exceeds the effective reference price: corn ($4.30 vs. $4.01); soybeans ($10.00 vs. $9.26). Announced wheat payment rate is zero: crop year price ($5.52) exceeds effective reference price ($5.50).
Commodity Program Policy Objective:
- ARC-CO provides assistance if a crop’s county market revenue (yield times price) is below 86% of a crop’s county benchmark market revenue for 5 recent crop years.
- PLC provides assistance if a crop’s US market year price is below 100% of the crop’s US effective reference price determined according to the farm bill.
- ARC-IC provides assistance if an ARC-IC farm’s average per acre revenue from all program crops is below 86% of the ARC-IC farm’s per acre benchmark revenue.
Payment Formulas (● = times):
- ARC-CO payment rate per base acre = MAX [$0, or 86% times (county benchmark revenue - observed revenue)] ● 85% payment factor.
- County benchmark revenue = (5-year Olympic average (high and low value removed) of recent US crop year prices ● 5-year Olympic average of recent trend-adjusted county yields).
- Observed revenue = observed US crop year price ● observed county yield. ARC-CO payment rate is capped at 10% of county benchmark revenue.
- PLC payment rate per base acre = MAX [$0, or (US effective reference price – US crop year price) ● FSA farm’s PLC base yield ● 85% payment factor.
As we await the 2025 harvest and think ahead to 2026 farm leases, now is a good time for our annual Ohio Farmland Leasing Update. We've scheduled the webinar for Friday, August 15, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. as a special edition of our Farm Office Live webinar series.
Our team will address economic and legal information that affects Ohio farmland leasing, including the latest information on these topics:
- Cash Rent Outlook – Survey Data and Key Issues Impacting Change
- Legal Issues and Requirements for Terminating a Farmland Lease
- Drafting Farm Leases for Drainage Tile Improvements
- Leasing the Pore Space Beneath Your Farmland
- Farmland Leasing Resources
Our speakers for the webinar include:
- Barry Ward, Leader, OSU Production Business Management
- Peggy Kirk Hall, Attorney, OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program
- Robert Moore, Attorney, OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program
There is no cost to attend the Ohio Farmland Leasing Update, but registration is necessary unless you're already registered for the Farm Office Live webinars. To register, visit go.osu.edu/register4fol.
Tags: farm leases, farmland leasing, farmland leasing update, Webinar, farmland leasing webinar
Comments: 0
Pages
