Business and Financial
For many farm families, land has been owned for decades, sometimes generations. That long history can create a common problem when it comes time to sell or transfer the property and no one is quite sure what the tax basis is.
Tax basis matters. It is used to calculate taxable gain when real estate is sold. The basic formula is straightforward, as the sale price minus the tax basis equals the gain. Without a reliable basis, it is impossible to estimate tax liability or plan for a sale.
Three situations come up most often. The first is inherited real estate where the date-of-death value was never documented or has been lost. The second is real estate that was purchased many years ago, where the original purchase price and improvements are unclear. The third is real estate that was received as a gift. Each may require a different approach.
Inherited Real Estate: Reconstructing Date-of-Death Value
Inherited property receives a “stepped-up” basis. In most cases, the basis is the fair market value of the property on the date of the prior owner’s death. Ideally, the estate would have obtained an appraisal at the time of death. If so, that appraisal establishes the basis. The first step, then, is to check with the attorney who handled the estate or locate estate records to see if an appraisal exists. Also, any estate tax returns that were filed may include the value of the real estate.
If the estate attorney is not available, probate court records can be checked. If the land was inherited through a will or intestacy (no will), the estate file should include the value of the land. The probate can provide the estate file upon request.
If no appraisal was done and/or the land did not go through probate, the value can still be established. A real estate appraiser can perform a retrospective appraisal, determining what the property was worth as of the date of death, even if that was many years ago. Appraisers rely on comparable sales and market data from that time period to support their conclusions.
This is a common and accepted practice. While it would have been easier to document the value at the time of death, a well-supported retrospective appraisal is generally sufficient for tax purposes.
Purchased Real Estate
For property that was purchased, the starting point for basis is the original purchase price. But for land acquired decades ago, that number is often forgotten or business records have been lost. The first step is to search for any existing documentation. Closing statements, deeds, loan records, or tax documents may provide clues about the purchase price.
If you do not have business records to establish the purchase price, the county auditor can usually help. When real estate is sold, a conveyance fee is paid to the county auditor. (Note: this is specific to Ohio county auditors.) The conveyance fee is the sale price multiplied by the conveyance fee factor, usually 0.2% - 0.4% of the purchase price. The conveyance fee is usually recorded on the face of the deed. So, once the conveyance fee is known, the county auditor can provide the conveyance fee rate at the time of the sale. With the conveyance fee and the rate, the sale price can be calculated.
For example, a farm was sold 30 years ago. The deed recorded at the Recorder’s office shows that the conveyance fee was $500. The county auditor’s records show the conveyance fee at the time was 0.2% of the sale price. With this information, the sale price is established as having been $250,000.
Gifted Real Estate
Real estate received as a gift is treated differently than inherited property. Instead of receiving a stepped-up basis, the recipient generally receives the same basis the donor had in the property.
For example, if a parent purchased farmland for $100,000 and later gifted it to a child when it was worth $500,000, the child’s basis is still $100,000, not $500,000. If the child later sells the property, the gain will be calculated using the parent’s original basis.
The challenge is that the recipient may not know what the donor originally paid for the property. In these situations, the recipient must determine the last time the property was sold or inherited. Once this is established, then the value can be determined using the methods described above.
Documentation Matters
In all three scenarios, documentation is key. The more support you have for the value or cost basis, the stronger your position if the IRS ever questions it. Formal appraisals, written records, and credible supporting data all carry weight.
If documentation is thin, it becomes even more important to be reasonable and consistent in how values are determined. A well-documented estimate is far better than no estimate at all.
Final Thoughts
Uncertainty about tax basis is common with long-held farmland, inherited property, and gifted land, but it can usually be resolved with some effort. Whether through locating old records or obtaining a retrospective appraisal, establishing basis is an important step before selling real estate. Taking the time to determine a defensible tax basis can prevent surprises at tax time and, in many cases, significantly reduce the amount of tax owed.
Tags: Real Estate Basis
Comments: 0
Recently, several antitrust class action lawsuits were filed against the world’s largest fertilizer producers, alleging a coordinated effort to artificially inflate the prices of essential crop nutrients. The primary lawsuits, Union Line Farms, Inc. v. The Mosaic Company, et al., filed in Colorado, target a group of large fertilizer producers. The defendants include:
- The Mosaic Company
- Nutrien Ltd.
- CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
- Koch Agronomic Services, LLC
- Yara International ASA
- Canpotex LTD
The complaints allege that starting around January 2021, these companies exploited their dominant market positions to restrict supply and maintain "capacity discipline." While the companies historically attributed price spikes to global supply chain disruptions and geopolitical volatility, the lawsuits argue that prices remained at record highs long after those external pressures subsided.
The litigation highlights the difference from historical pricing norms. Between 2021 and 2022, the cost of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (NPK) fertilizers surged significantly. According to the filings, this alleged price fixing added an estimated $128,000 in additional input costs per farm in 2022 alone. While farm expenses reached these record levels, the defendant companies reported some of the highest profits in their corporate histories.
The private class action suits are not the only pressure these companies face. In early March 2026, media reports surfaced that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division has opened its own investigation into whether these producers colluded to raise prices. This federal scrutiny follows months of pressure from agricultural groups and lawmakers concerned about market concentration in the fertilizer sector.
It is important to note that these allegations have not been proven in court and the defendants deny wrongdoing.
The Class Action Lawsuit
These cases are currently in the early stages of litigation. The courts must first decide whether to certify these as class actions. A class action allows one or several individuals (the "Lead Plaintiffs") to sue on behalf of a larger group of people (the "Class") who have all suffered the same harm. Instead of 10,000 farmers each filing 10,000 separate lawsuits against Nutrien or Mosaic, the court consolidates them into one case. Before the case can move forward as a class action, a judge must "certify" the class. The judge must be convinced that the group is so large that individual suits are impractical and that the legal issues are common to everyone in the group.
In class actions, attorneys almost always work on a contingency fee basis. Farmers do not pay hourly rates or retainers. The law firms "front" all the costs of the litigation (which can run into millions for expert witnesses and data analysis). If the case is won or settled, the court creates a "Common Fund." The attorneys then ask the judge to award them a percentage of that fund (typically 25% to 33%) to cover their fees and expenses. The judge must approve the attorney's fees to ensure they are reasonable and that the class members (the farmers) are getting a fair share.
For producers, there is generally little risk in remaining part of the class. If the case is successful, class members receive a share of any settlement or judgment. If not, they owe nothing. The attorneys for the lead plaintiff will typically reach out to other farmers and inform them of the lawsuit and their right within the class. Farmers should retain fertilizer purchase records and related documentation to substantiate any potential claim if the litigation results in a recovery.
As we move into March, we thought it’d be a good time to look back at what committees in both chambers of the Ohio General Assembly got up to in February. Committees in both the House and Senate are considering bills to regulate carbon capture, change the levy process, study the effects of data centers, and more. Here is an update on the bills we are following.
H.B. 170, Carbon Capture—On Tuesday, February 17, the Ohio Senate Energy Committee held its first hearing on House Bill 170, which would give the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) the authority to regulate carbon sequestration in the state. We previously wrote about H.B. 170, sponsored by Representatives Robb Blasdel (R-Columbiana) and Peterson (R-Sabina) when it was passed by the Ohio House in October 2025. For a more detailed discussion of the bill, please see our previous blog post, available here.
The Senate Energy Committee heard testimony from Representative Peterson, along with five proponents of H.B. 170. Most of the testimony centered on the idea of the state gaining “primacy,” or in other words, seeking approval from the U.S. EPA for the state to regulate Class VI injection wells instead of the federal government through the U.S. EPA. Basically, sponsors and proponents argued that if the state can regulate Class VI injection wells within Ohio, that will result in a faster permitting process for carbon sequestration projects within the state. Representative Peterson pointed out that by gaining “primacy,” the regulatory decisions would be more connected to the Ohio communities where the wells are located.
Several proponents of the bill also testified, including the American Petroleum Institute, the Ohio Oil & Gas Association, Vault 44.01, Tenaska, and Hocking Hills Energy and Well Service, LLC. Proponents testified that states with primacy over Class VI injection wells were usually able to approve a project within 9-12 months, whereas the federal EPA process could take around two years. Furthermore, not obtaining primacy could mean that Ohio might lose projects and jobs to other states who do have primacy. Faster state approval could create jobs and economic benefits in Ohio for projects that the proponent companies are considering. Some of those projects would be centered around sequestering carbon from ethanol facilities located in Ohio. At present, North Dakota, Wyoming, Louisiana, West Virginia, Arizona, and Texas have obtained primacy to regulate Class VI injection wells. Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Michigan are currently considering legislation to gain primacy. You can read H.B. 170 here.
H.B. 420, Property Tax—House Bill 420 had its first hearing in the House Ways & Means Committee on February 11. Sponsored by Representatives Click (R-Vickery) and Willis (R-Springfield), H.B. 420 would prohibit new continuous levies from being placed on ballots, require continuous levies currently on the books to be converted to fixed-term or renewed levies prior to 2030, and prohibit continuous levies in the state after 2030 unless such levies are specifically authorized by voters. The House Ways & Means Committee heard sponsor testimony from Representatives Click and Willis. Representative Click argued that “each generation deserves the right” to approve or disapprove of a levy tax, and that continuous levies prohibit this right by imposing taxes upon people who didn’t originally vote for them. Questions from members of the committee clarified that if passed, the longest levies would last 10 years, however, levies could also exceed that timeframe if they are fixed to loans for long-term investments made by a school, locality, etc. Representative Rogers (D-Toledo) expressed concerns that if passed, the bill could lead to an upheaval in local funding. You can read H.B. 420 here.
House bill 420 is part of what Representative Click has dubbed a “Taxpayers Freedom Trilogy” bill package that also includes House Bills 421 and 422. H.B. 421 would allow ballot measures to reduce inside millage, and H.B. 422 would establish higher thresholds for levy requests over 1 mill (60%) and 2 mills (66%). Neither of the second or third parts of the “trilogy” have received committee hearings yet. Of note, a second hearing on H.B. 420 was scratched from the February 18 House Ways & Means Committee agenda, and House Speaker Huffman has indicated that it is unlikely that these property tax proposals will pass the House before the summer legislative recess. You can find H.B. 421 here and H.B. 422 here.
H.B. 646, Create the Data Center Study Commission—House Bill 646 had its second hearing in the House Technology & Innovation Committee on February 24. We covered the details of H.B. 646, sponsored by Representatives Click (R-Vickery) and Deeter (R-Norwalk) in an earlier blog post, available here. The hearing drew interested party testimony from numerous groups and individuals, including the Ohio Chamber of Commerce and the Ohio Farm Bureau. The Ohio Chamber of Commerce supported the creation of a Data Center Study Commission but implored the committee to include representation from the tech industry on the Commission, noting that data centers would bring with them jobs, increased GDP, and increased local revenues. Ohio Farm Bureau supported the creation of a Commission to study the impacts of data centers, including the impacts on agricultural land and resources long term, water use, water quality, and other potential environmental impacts. Ohio Farm Bureau also cited the need for a robust regulatory framework for data centers and long-term land use planning, worrying that without such planning, agriculture in the state of Ohio will suffer from loss of land to development and other problems. Individual citizens testified that they would like H.B. 646 to include a moratorium on building data centers while the study takes place and noted that the Commission should consider what happens to data center property after it is no longer in use. You can find H.B. 646 here.
S.B. 285, Recoupment Charges—The Senate Ways & Means Committee heard proponent testimony for Senate Bill 285 during its February 10 meeting. S.B. 285, sponsored by Senator Schaffer (R-Lancaster), would make it explicit that agricultural land converted to certain conservation uses would be exempt from a CAUV recoupment penalty if it was previously used for agricultural purposes. Specifically, land would be exempted if it is given to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) to use as a nature preserve, if it is owned or held by an organization with the purposes of natural resources protection or water quality improvement. The president of the Stream and Wetlands Foundation, based in Lancaster, Ohio, explained during his testimony that the bill would basically be a small technical clarification to previous legislation passed in 2022. Since 2022, some county governments have interpreted current law as requiring CAUV recoupment charges to be paid for land used to protect natural resources, while other counties have not. S.B. 285 would clear up this confusion and affirm that CAUV does not apply to exempted land used for conservation purposes. S.B. 285 is available here.
S.B. 361, Eminent Domain—During its meeting on February 17, the Senate General Government Committee heard sponsor testimony from Senator Schaffer (R-Lancaster) on Senate Bill 361. The bill would prohibit the taking of land by eminent domain for use as a trail for hiking, bicycling, horseback riding, ski touring, canoeing, or other nonmotorized forms of travel. During his testimony, Senator Schaffer gave an example of a property owner in his district whose land would be cut in half by a recreational trail, and asserted that local government shouldn’t be able to take land from a property owner just for recreational purposes. Senator DeMora (D-Columbus) asked for clarification about whether pathways for pedestrian and bike safety along roadways would fall under this prohibition. Senator Schaffer responded that that is not the intent of the bill, and that he would be willing to work with the Committee on language if necessary. S.B. 361 is available here.
Tags: Ohio legislation, property tax, cauv, carbon capture and storage, eminent domain, data centers, land use
Comments: 0
The well-known advantages of business entities include liability protection, tax management, and shared management responsibilities. A lesser-known advantage is the relative ease of transferring ownership. When assets such as land, machinery, or livestock are held in an entity like an LLC, ownership interests in the entity can often be transferred far more efficiently than transferring each asset individually. Rather than retitling deeds, updating equipment titles, or reassigning livestock ownership, a transfer of membership interests can effectively shift ownership of all underlying assets in a single step.
Funding the LLC
The first step is to form the LLC and transfer the assets into it. Land is conveyed by deed, titled vehicles by title transfer, and untitled assets such as machinery and livestock by written assignment. This step is critical. Until the LLC is established and owns the assets, there is no entity ownership interest to transfer.
Transferring Ownership
Once the LLC is established and the assets are transferred to it, ownership interests can be transferred with relatively simple documentation. The transfer document should identify the current owner, the recipient, the percentage or units being transferred, the purchase price or value of the gift, and the effective date of the transfer. Both parties should sign and date the document.
Documenting Value
While the transfer of ownership is relatively simple, it is important to document the value of the ownership being transferred. If the transfer is a sale, the value will determine the amount of taxes that may be owed. If the transfer is a gift, the value will determine if the transfer impacts the federal estate tax exemption.
The value of a gifted ownership interest is its fair market value. That value should be supported by an appraisal or reliable market data. If the gift is undervalued, the IRS can adjust it to fair market value, potentially creating adverse tax consequences. While it may be tempting to rely on county auditor values or informal estimates for land, the better practice is to obtain a qualified appraisal. Although an appraisal adds expense, it is often a worthwhile investment to reduce the risk of problems in an IRS audit.
Example
Consider the following example to illustrate gifting through a business entity.
Farmer owns a farm and would like to gift it to Daughter. To minimize potential estate tax concerns, Farmer plans to make annual gifts over ten years, keeping each gift within the annual exclusion amount. Without using a business entity, Farmer would need to execute and record a new deed each year to transfer the annual interest in the property.
If the farm is first transferred to an LLC, however, each annual gift can be completed by transferring membership interests in the LLC through a simple written assignment. This approach avoids repeated deed preparation and recording. In addition, transfers of LLC interests are private transactions, while deeds are recorded and become public record.
As this example illustrates, using a business entity can make ownership transfers relatively simple. For farm and business owners considering a sale or gift of ownership, it may be worthwhile to explore whether establishing an entity would facilitate the transition. Because ownership transfers can carry significant tax and legal implications, legal and tax advisors should be involved in the planning process.
Note: for a thorough discussion on the tax implications of gifting, see the Gifting Assets Prior to Death bulletin available at farmoffice.osu.edu.
Farmers already face an onslaught of challenges: fluctuating markets, unpredictable weather, labor shortages, equipment breakdowns, regulatory demands, and tight finances. Federal financial crime regulations do not usually rank high on their list of concerns.
Today, we are focusing on exactly that – a new rule from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).
The positive news is that FinCEN’s Residential Real Estate Reporting Rule (RRE Rule), which takes effect March 1, 2026, is unlikely to impact most routine farm operations.
That said, it is worth raising awareness about these new requirements and alerting farmers to potential new fees and requirements that could arise in connection wither their next residential real estate transaction.
Background
You may recall the name FinCEN from last year’s significant developments surrounding the beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirements for owners of domestic companies under the Corporate Transparency Act. That issue generated considerable attention and debate.
Now, FinCEN is back in the headlines, this time targeting residential real estate transactions. The RRE Rule was finalized to increase transparency in non-financed transfers of residential property. Simply, the rule aims to curb money laundering by mandating the reporting of beneficial ownership information (BOI) for the owners of businesses (such as LLCs or corporations) or trusts involved as buyers or “transferees” of residential property without a traditional mortgage or bank financing.
Law enforcement officials believe that all-cash or other non-financed transactions can sometimes serve as vehicles for concealing illicit funds. By requiring the reporting of BOI, they aim to uncover the true individuals behind these legal entities or trusts, ultimately helping to identify, disrupt, and prevent such money laundering schemes.
When Does the RRE Rule Take Effect?
March 1, 2026.
What Transactions Must Be Reported?
Transfers of property are reportable when they meet all of the following criteria:
- The property is residential.
- This includes single-family homes, townhouses, condominiums, cooperatives, and apartment buildings designed for 1-4 families.
- The transfer is non-financed.
- This means there is no mortgage or loan from a financial institution that is already subject to anti-money laundering laws.
- The purchaser of the property is a legal business entity or trust.
- This rule does not apply to purchases made by individuals.
- No exemption applies (see below).
Who Files the Report?
The best news about this new reporting rule? The buyer (or “transferee”) of the property is not responsible for reporting the BOI to FinCEN (unless they happen to be one of the specific professionals listed in the cascade below).
Instead, FinCEN assigns reporting responsibility through a structured “reporting cascade.” This hierarchy identifies common real estate professionals involved in property transfers and ranks them in order of priority. The obligation falls on the first applicable professional in the sequence. Professionals can also enter into a written designation agreement to shift the responsibility among themselves for added flexibility and/or convenience.
The cascade order is as follows:
- The person listed as the closing or settlement agent on the closing or settlement statement.
- If none, the person who prepared the closing or settlement statement.
- If none, the person who records the deed.
- If none, the title insurance underwriter.
- If none, the person who disburses the greatest amount of funds in connection with the transfer.
- If none, the person who evaluates or provides the title evaluation (e.g., Title Examiner, Attorney, Title Agent/Company).
- If none, the person who prepared the deed.
When Must the Report Be Filed?
The Real Estate Report must be filed within:
- 30 calendar days after closing; or
- By the last day of the next month following the month closing, whichever gives the most time.
What Information is Reported?
The reporting person must provide information about the transfer of residential property identifying the following:
- The reporting person
- The entity or trust receiving ownership of the property
- The beneficial owners of the purchasing entity or trust
- This includes a beneficial owner’s full legal name, date of birth, current residential address, citizenship, and a unique identifying number (an IRS TIN or passport number)
- Individuals signing the documents on behalf of the purchasing entity or trust
- The seller
- The residential property being transferred
- Total consideration and information about any payments made
Which Transactions Are Exempt?
FinCEN carved out several exemptions for “lower-risk transfers.” Those transactions that do not need to be reported include:
- Transfers of easements;
- Transfers resulting from death, pursuant to the terms of a will, trust, operation of law, or contractual provision like a transfer on death deed;
- Transfers as a result of divorce or dissolution;
- Transfers to a bankruptcy estate;
- Transfers already being supervised by a U.S. court;
- No-consideration transfers of property by an individual (or married couple) to a trust of which they are the grantor or settlor;
- Transfers to a qualified intermediary for purposes of a like-kind exchange under Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code; and
- Transfers for which there is no reporting person.
What is the Impact of This Rule on Residential Transfers?
For those transactions subject to the RRE Rule, the most noticeable impact is likely to be an additional fee (or an increase in fees) tied to the transfer of the property.
The designated reporting person will most likely charge a fee to cover the time and effort required to collect the necessary beneficial ownership information and prepare/submit the report to FinCEN.
What Does This Mean for Farmers?
For the vast majority of farmers, this rule will not apply. First, farmland is not classified as residential property and falls outside the scope of the rule. Second, most farm acquisitions involve financing. Third, routine estate planning transfers are exempt from any reporting obligations. In short, typical transactions like purchasing, selling, or passing down farmland, including the farmhouse itself, are highly unlikely to trigger any new reporting requirements.
The Narrow Scenario Where Farmers Might See an Impact.
That said, there is one specific scenario where a farmer or rural property owner might trigger the RRE Rule. If a farmer chooses to subdivide their property and separately survey off the farmhouse (treating it as distinct residential real estate) and then attempt to gift or transfer that farmhouse to an LLC, then the farmer likely has a reportable transfer on his or her hands. In this narrow case, the transfer likely would not qualify for any of the rule’s exemptions, such as those for routine estate planning gifts to trusts created by the individual, and would therefore require the designated reporting person to collect beneficial ownership information for the parties involved and file it with FinCEN.
Key Takeaway
In summary, FinCEN’s RRE Rule is not likely to affect the majority of farmers. That changes, however, in certain cases involving non-financed transfers of residential property (such as gifting a home to an LLC or conveying it to a trust where the seller/transferor is not the settlor or grantor of that trust). In those situations, do not be caught off guard if an additional reporting-related fee shows up at closing.
To be clear, it is not a fine or punishment for anything done wrong, it is simply the expense of doing business under the federal government’s new reporting requirements.
As with any transaction, proactive planning and clear communication with your attorney, accountant, or other trusted advisors can help ensure everything proceeds efficiently and without unexpected hiccups.
Tags: FinCEN, Property, Federal Law, Ag Law, Farm Law, Estate Planning, Gifting, LLC, trusts
Comments: 0
When it comes to starting a new business venture in Ohio, the first major hurdle is choosing a legal structure. The Ohio Secretary of State recently released business formation data that highlights a substantial trend in how new business owners are organizing their business affairs.
The numbers are clear: the Limited Liability Company (LLC) is the undisputed king of Ohio business. According to the latest data, the breakdown of new businesses registered in Ohio in 2025 is as follows:
LLCs: 146,455
Corporations: 16,127
Limited Liability Partnerships (LLP): 654
Limited Partnerships (LP): 472
General Partnerships: 247
To put this in perspective, nearly 90% of all new business formations in Ohio are LLCs. While corporations still hold a steady second place, they are outnumbered by LLCs by a ratio of more than 9-to-1. Traditional partnerships, once common in family farming, are now rarely used.
Why the LLC Is the Overwhelming Choice
Why are new business owners opting for the LLC? It comes down to three main reasons: liability protection, simplicity and versatility.
1. The Shield of Liability Protection
A primary reason to establish an LLC is to protect personal assets. In a Sole Proprietorship or General Partnership, the owner or each partner can be held personally liable for the debts and legal obligations of the business. If the farm encounters a liability incident or faces a lawsuit, personal assets could be at risk.
The LLC creates a "corporate veil." It separates the individual from the entity, meaning that, in most cases, a member's risk is limited to the amount they have invested in the company. Corporations also offer similar liability protection.
2. Ease of Maintenance
While Corporations also offer liability protection, they come with a heavier administrative burden. Corporations are required to hold annual meetings of shareholders and directors, keep detailed minutes, and follow formal bylaws.
For a family farm, these formalities can be cumbersome. The LLC offers a more "informal" environment. There is no statutory requirement for annual meetings or a board of directors, allowing farm families to focus more on operations and less on paperwork.
3. Tax Versatility
The LLC is versatile when it comes to the IRS. By default, a single-member LLC is treated as a disregarded entity (taxed like a sole proprietorship), and a multi-member LLC is taxed as a partnership. However, an LLC can also elect to be taxed as an S-Corp or a C-Corp if that proves more beneficial for the owners. This "pick your own" tax strategy allows farms to adapt as their revenue grows without having to change their entire legal structure.
Summary
The data from the Secretary of State confirms what we see in practice: the LLC has become the standard vehicle for Ohio business. With 146,455 new LLCs formed, it is clear that the combination of "corporate-style" liability protection and "partnership-style" flexibility is what Ohio business owners are looking for.
As always, before forming a new entity, consult with an attorney and a tax professional to ensure the structure matches your specific transition and financial goals.
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
Pages
