In the world of real estate transactions, deeds play a crucial role in transferring property ownership from one party to another. Ohio, like many other states, offers several types of deeds, each with its own set of characteristics and implications. Understanding the differences between these deeds is essential for both buyers and sellers. In this article, we will explore four common types of deeds in Ohio: General Warranty Deed, Limited Warranty Deed, Quitclaim Deed, and Fiduciary Deed, and highlight the distinctions between them.
General Warranty Deed
A General Warranty Deed is one of the most comprehensive and protective deeds available in Ohio. When a property is conveyed through a General Warranty Deed, the seller (grantor) provides an extensive set of warranties and assurances to the buyer (grantee). These warranties include:
a. Warranty of Title: The seller guarantees that they hold clear and marketable title to the property and will defend the buyer against any claims or defects in title that may arise before or during their ownership.
b. Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment: The seller promises that the buyer will have peaceful and undisturbed possession of the property, free from interference or claims by others.
c. Covenant Against Encumbrances: The seller assures the buyer that there are no outstanding liens or encumbrances on the property, except as specified in the deed.
General Warranty Deeds provide the highest level of protection to buyers and are typically used in traditional real estate transactions. They are considered the gold standard of deeds.
Example: Farmer buys a farm from Seller. Later, Farmer tries to use the farm as collateral and discovers there is an unpaid contractor's lien from the previous owner to Seller. With a General Warranty Deed, Seller is responsible for addressing and clearing the lien so that Farmer can proceed with their plans.
Limited Warranty Deed
A Limited Warranty Deed, also known as a Special Warranty Deed, offers a more limited set of warranties compared to a General Warranty Deed. In a Limited Warranty Deed, the seller guarantees that they have not caused any defects in title during their ownership, but they do not warrant against defects that may have existed before their ownership. Essentially, the seller is only responsible for title issues that occurred while they owned the property.
Limited Warranty Deeds are commonly used in commercial real estate transactions and can offer some protection to buyers while limiting the seller's liability.
Example. Using the previous example with a Limited Warranty Deed, Seller would not be liable to Farmer because the title issue was created prior to Seller owning the property. Seller would only be liable to Farmer if the title issue was created while Seller owned the farm.
A Quitclaim Deed is a deed that conveys the seller's interest in a property without making any warranties or guarantees about the quality of title. Essentially, the seller is saying, "I'm giving you whatever interest I have in this property, if any." Quitclaim Deeds are often used in situations where property is transferred between family members, in divorce settlements, or to clear up questions about property ownership.
It's important to note that while Quitclaim Deeds provide no warranties, they can be a quick and straightforward way to transfer property interests when the parties involved trust each other.
Example: Sarah and her sibling, David, jointly inherited a farm. Sarah decides to buy out David's share, and they use a Quitclaim Deed for the transfer. David, by signing the Quitclaim Deed, is essentially relinquishing any interest he may have in the farm without making any claims or guarantees about the farm's title. This allows Sarah to take sole ownership.
A Fiduciary Deed is used when the person transferring the property is acting as a fiduciary, such as an executor of an estate or a trustee of a trust. These deeds convey the property interest held by the estate or trust to the designated beneficiaries. A fiduciary deed warrants that the fiduciary is acting in the scope of their appointed authority, but it does not guarantee title of the property. This deed relieves the executor or trustee of liability for title defects so that people will be more willing to serve in a fiduciary capacity.
Example. Sarah's father passed away and she is the trustee of his trust. As part of the trust administration, she needs to transfer ownership of her father's farm to herself and her siblings. Sarah would use a Fiduciary Deed to convey the property to the beneficiaries. If a title defect is later discovered, Sarah will not be liable to the beneficiaries.
In Ohio, the choice of deed in a real estate transaction is a critical decision that can have significant legal and financial implications for both buyers and sellers. General Warranty Deeds offer the highest level of protection, while Limited Warranty Deeds limit the seller's warranties to their period of ownership. Quitclaim Deeds provide no warranties at all but can be useful in certain situations. Fiduciary Deeds are used in trust and estate scenarios, recognizing the grantor's fiduciary role.
Before entering into any real estate transaction in Ohio, it is advisable to consult with legal professionals who can provide guidance on the most appropriate type of deed for your specific situation. By understanding the differences between these deeds, you can make informed decisions and ensure a smooth and legally sound property transfer process.
The term “Land Contract” is often used as a generic name for any land installment sale where the buyer makes payments to the seller over time. However, a land contract has a specific meaning under the law and does not apply to all installment sales. A land contract is one type of land installment sale while seller-financed is another. While the land contract and seller-financed option allow buyers to acquire property without traditional bank financing, they differ significantly in terms of legal implications and practical considerations. In this article, we will discuss the difference between a land contract installment sale and a seller-financed installment sale.
Land Contracts: An Overview
A land contract is a legal agreement between a property seller and a buyer. In this arrangement, the buyer agrees to purchase the property over time by making regular payments to the seller, who retains legal title to the property until the contract is fully paid off. After the final payment is made, the seller signs the deed over to the buyer. Land contracts are a popular choice for buyers who may not qualify for traditional financing due to credit issues or other reasons.
Key Characteristics of Land Contracts in Ohio:
Legal Title: In Ohio, the seller retains legal title to the property until the contract is satisfied, while the buyer obtains equitable title, allowing them to possess and use the property.
Payment Structure: Buyers make monthly or annual payments to the seller, including principal, interest, and sometimes taxes and insurance. The specific terms are negotiable and outlined in the contract.
Default Consequences: If the buyer defaults on payments and the contract has been in effect for less than five years or less than 20% of the payment has been made, the seller can terminate the contract and retake possession of the property. If the contract is older than five years or more than 20% of the purchase price has been paid, the seller must foreclose and will be paid from the proceeds of a judicial sale.
Legal Requirements: Ohio Revised Code Section 5313.02 requires sixteen specific requirements for a land contract. If entering a land contract, be sure all requirements are met so that the land contract is enforceable for both buyer and seller.
Seller-Financed Land Sales: An Overview
Seller-financed land sales involve the property seller acting as the lender, providing financing to the buyer for the purchase. Legal title to the property is transferred to the buyer at the time of sale. This method allows buyers to acquire the property without the need for a traditional bank loan.
Key Characteristics of Seller-Financed Land Sales in Ohio:
Title Transfer: Unlike land contracts, seller-financed land sales typically involve the immediate transfer of both legal and equitable title to the buyer upon the completion of the sale.
Payment Structure: Buyers make regular payments to the seller, which include principal and interest, similar to a traditional mortgage. These terms are negotiated between the parties and documented in a promissory note and mortgage. The mortgage provides security to the seller in the event the buyer defaults.
Default Consequences: If the buyer defaults on payments, the seller can initiate a foreclosure proceeding, similar to traditional lenders, to ensure payment is made.
Legal Requirements: There are no specific legal requirements for a seller-finance sale. However, a promissory note should be provided to the seller that includes the amount owed, interest rate and payment schedule. A mortgage should also be executed and recorded to provide security to the seller in the event of buyer’s default.
Title Transfer: The most significant difference between land contracts and seller-financed land sales in Ohio is the timing of title transfer. In a land contract, the seller retains legal title until the contract is fully satisfied, while in seller-financed land sales, both legal and equitable title transfer to the buyer upon sale completion.
Negotiability: Both methods offer flexibility in negotiating terms, including interest rates, down payments, and property responsibilities. Buyers and sellers should carefully consider and document these terms to avoid future disputes.
Legal Assistance: Given the complexities of real estate transactions, it is advisable for both buyers and sellers to seek legal counsel to ensure that the chosen method aligns with their interests and complies with Ohio law.
Which is Better?
It depends. For the seller, a land contract is often better because the deed is not transferred until the final payment is made. This allows the seller to keep legal title and potentially have more protection if the buyer defaults. For the buyer, the seller-financed option is usually better. The seller will prefer to have the legal title throughout the transaction so that they have full control over the property. Tax consequences are similar for both a land contract and seller-financed sale.
When it comes to land transactions in Ohio, understanding the difference between land contracts and seller-financed land sales is crucial. These methods provide alternatives to traditional financing, but they come with distinct legal and practical implications. Buyers and sellers should carefully evaluate their options, negotiate terms diligently, and consider consulting legal professionals to ensure a smooth and legally compliant transaction. Ultimately, a well-informed decision can lead to a successful and mutually beneficial real estate transaction.
Barry Ward, Leader, Production Business Management
Continued high crop prices, reasonable crop margins and relatively healthy farm balance sheets over the last 2 years have given strength to farmland markets. Higher input costs over the last two years together with rising interest rates have offset some of this support but farmland values continue to increase. Many of these same factors have given support to the farmland rental markets which have also seen increases last year and are expected to see additional increases in 2023.
Results from the Western Ohio Cropland Values and Cash Rents Survey show cropland values in western Ohio are expected to increase in 2023 by 6.1 to 10.7 percent depending on the region and land class. This follows increases ranging from 6.9 to 13.8 percent from ’21 to ’22.
Cash rents are expected to increase from 5.0 to 6.7 percent in 2023 depending on the region and land class. This is on top of rental increases of 1.3 to 3.8 percent from 2021 to 2022.
Ohio Cropland Values and Cash Rent
Ohio cropland varies significantly in its production capabilities and, consequently, cropland values and cash rents vary widely throughout the state. Generally, western Ohio cropland values and cash rents differ from much of southern and eastern Ohio cropland values and cash rents. The primary factors affecting these values and rents are land productivity and potential crop return, and the variability of those crop returns. Soils, fertility and drainage/irrigation capabilities are primary factors that most influence land productivity, crop return and variability of those crop returns.
Other factors impacting land values and cash rents may include field size and shape, field accessibility, market access, local market prices, field perimeter characteristics and potential for wildlife damage, buildings and grain storage, previous tillage system and crops, tolerant/resistant weed populations, USDA Program Yields, population density, and competition for the cropland in a region. Factors specific to cash rental rates may include services provided by the operator and specific conditions of the lease. This fact sheet summarizes data collected for western Ohio cropland values and cash rents.
The Western Ohio Cropland Values and Cash Rents study was conducted from January through April in 2023. This opinion-based study surveyed professionals with a knowledge of Ohio’s cropland values and rental rates. Professionals surveyed were rural appraisers, agricultural lenders, professional farm managers, ag business professionals, OSU Extension educators, farmers, landowners, and Farm Service Agency personnel.
The study results are based on 190 surveys. Respondents were asked to group their estimates based on three land quality classes: average, top, and bottom. Within each land-quality class, respondents were asked to estimate average corn and soybean yields for a five-year period based on typical farming practices. Survey respondents were also asked to estimate current bare cropland values and cash rents negotiated in the current or recent year for each land-quality class. Survey results are summarized below for western Ohio with regional summaries (subsets of western Ohio) for northwest Ohio and southwest Ohio.
The complete survey summary can be accessed and downloaded at our Farm Management Page:
With just over a week left until echoes of “Hang on Sloopy” and chants of “O-H” and “I-O” can be heard from Buckeye faithful across the nation, we thought we would provide you with some light reading to hold you over until that long awaited 3:30 kick off. In this edition of our Ag Law Harvest, we focus on three recent Ohio Supreme Court cases that could potentially impact business owners, Northern Ohio landowners, and Ohio taxpayers.
Assault and Battery: Is it Covered Under an Insurance Policy?
A victim of a stabbing at an Ohio adult care facility is unable to collect judgment from the facility’s insurance company after a recent decision by the Ohio Supreme Court. The victim was living at the facility when another resident stabbed him. The perpetrator was later indicted on criminal charges but found not guilty by reason of insanity.
The victim then filed a civil lawsuit against the perpetrator and the facility to recover for damages resulting from the stabbing injuries. The victim ultimately dropped his lawsuit against the perpetrator and entered into a settlement agreement with the facility. As part of the settlement agreement, the victim agreed not to pursue the judgment against the facility, and instead, sought to collect his judgment from the facility’s insurance company.
At the time of the stabbing, the adult care facility had a commercial general liability policy. When the victim sought judgment from the facility’s insurance company, the insurance company refused to provide coverage. The insurance company explained that the insurance policy contained a provision that specifically excluded coverage for any bodily injury resulting from an assault or battery. The specific provision at issue stated:
The victim argued that because the perpetrator was found to be not guilty by reason of insanity in the criminal trial, the exclusion provision was nullified because the perpetrator lacked the subjective intent to commit any assault or battery.
The Ohio Supreme Court disagreed. The Court explained that the plain language of the exclusion provision of the insurance policy at issue is clear – there is no intent requirement included in the exclusion language. Therefore, the Court held that coverage did not exist for the willful assault on the victim. The Court sympathized with the victim but ultimately could not interpret the insurance policy language to include a subjective intent requirement where none existed.
This case demonstrates the importance of reading and understanding your business insurance policy. Insurance policies are, at the core, contracts between two parties and the language contained within the policy will usually govern that contractual relationship. What you assume is covered under your policy may not necessarily be the case. Furthermore, not all insurance policies are the same. We have seen Ohio cases where an insurance policy does require the presence of some subjective intent in order for an assault and battery exclusion to apply. Speak with your insurance agent and/or attorney to make sure you understand when and where coverage exists, knowing this can be critical to protecting you, your farm, and/or your business.
Ohio Supreme Court Approves Northern Ohio Wind Farm.
Residents of Huron and Erie Counties along with Black Swamp Bird Conservatory (the “Plaintiffs”) recently lost their battle in court to prevent the construction of a new wind farm in Northern Ohio. The Plaintiffs argued that the Ohio Power Siting Board (the “Board”) failed to satisfy Ohio law before granting the new wind farm its certificate of environmental compatibility and public need. Specifically, the Plaintiffs assert that the wind farm could “disrupt the area’s water supply, create excessive noise and ‘shadow flicker’ for residents near the wind farm, and kill bald eagles and migrating birds.”
The Ohio Supreme Court found otherwise. The Court concluded that the Plaintiffs failed to establish that the Board’s granting of the certificate was unlawful or unreasonable. As approved, the new wind farm will consist of up to 71 turbines and cover 32,000 acres of leased land. To read more about the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision visit: In re Application of Firelands Winds, L.L.C.
Ohio Supreme Court Sets New Precedent on Interpreting Ohio Tax Law.
In Ohio, most retail sales are subject to sales tax unless a certain exemption applies. Ohio law does have a sales tax exemption for equipment used directly in the production of oil and gas. A fracking business recently challenged a decision by Ohio’s Tax Commissioner and Board of Tax Appeals that levied the sales tax on certain equipment purchased by the business. The fracking equipment at issue included: a data van, blenders, sand kings, t-belts, hydration units, and chemical-additive units.
The Tax Commissioner concluded that the fracking equipment was not used directly in the extraction of oil and gas, only indirectly, and therefore, did not qualify for the tax exemption. The Ohio Supreme Court felt differently.
The Court found that all the equipment, except the data van, is used in unison to expose the oil and gas. Because the equipment is used to expose the oil and gas – a necessary part of fracking – the Court had little difficulty concluding that the equipment is being used directly in the production of oil and gas.
In addition to the equipment’s direct use in the production of oil and gas, the Court also recognized that the fracking equipment may also have a storage or delivery function/purpose. However, the Court reasoned that a piece of equipment’s function must be viewed through the “primary purpose” lens. For example, the Court held that although the blender equipment in this case performs a holding function, the primary use of the blender is to mix “the critical ingredients in the fracking recipe seconds before the mixture is inserted into the well.” Therefore, the Court found that the blender’s holding function did not disqualify it from Ohio’s sales tax exemption.
Additionally, in this case, the Court also issued an opinion on how Ohio courts should interpret tax law moving forward. Normally, courts use the ever-important legal principal of stare decisis to help it decide on new cases. Stare decisis is the principal that courts and judges should honor the decisions, rulings, and opinions from prior cases when ruling on new cases. Here, the Court took its opportunity to acknowledge that in the past the Court interpreted tax exemptions against the taxpayer, favoring tax collection. But the Court made clear that from here on out, the Court “will apply the same rules of construction to tax statutes that [it applies] to all other statutes” without a slant toward one side or the other. The Court concluded that its task “is not to make tax policy but to provide a fair reading of what the legislature has enacted: one that is based on the plain language of the [law].”
To read the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision visit: Stingray Pressure Pumping, L.L.C. v. Harris
The summertime slowdown hasn't affected the number of agricultural law questions we've received from across Ohio. Here's a sampling of recent questions and answers:
Is a tree service business considered “agriculture” for purposes of Ohio rural zoning?
No, tree trimming and tree cutting activities are not listed in the definition of agriculture in Ohio’s rural zoning laws, although the definition does include the growing of timber and ornamental trees. The definition ties to the “agricultural exemption” and activities that are in the “agriculture” definition can be exempt from county and township zoning. Here is the definition, from Ohio Revised Code sections 303.01 and 519.01:
"agriculture" includes farming; ranching; algaculture meaning the farming of algae; aquaculture; apiculture; horticulture; viticulture; animal husbandry, including, but not limited to, the care and raising of livestock, equine, and fur-bearing animals; poultry husbandry and the production of poultry and poultry products; dairy production; the production of field crops, tobacco, fruits, vegetables, nursery stock, ornamental shrubs, ornamental trees, flowers, sod, or mushrooms; timber; pasturage; any combination of the foregoing; and the processing, drying, storage, and marketing of agricultural products when those activities are conducted in conjunction with, but are secondary to, such husbandry or production.
What are the benefits of being enrolled in the “agricultural district program” in Ohio, and is there a penalty for withdrawing from the program?
There are three benefits to enrolling farmland in the agricultural district program:
- The first is the nuisance protection it offers a landowner. A landowner can use the defense the law provides if a neighbor who moves in after the farm was established files a lawsuit claiming the farm is a “nuisance” due to noise, odors, dust, etc. Successfully raising the defense and showing that the farm meets the legal requirements for being agricultural district land would cause the lawsuit to be dismissed.
- The second benefit is that the law also exempts agricultural district land from assessments for water, sewer and electric line service extensions that would cross the land. As long as the land remains in agricultural district program, the landowner would not be subject to the assessments. But if the land is changed to another use or the landowner withdraws the land from the agricultural district program, assessments would be due. The assessment exemption does not apply to a homestead on the farmland, however.
- A third benefit of the agricultural district program law is that it requires an evaluation at the state level if agricultural district land is subject to an eminent domain action that would affect at least 10 acres or 10% of the land. In that case, the Director of the Ohio Department of Agriculture must be notified of the eminent domain project and must assess the situation to determine the effect of the eminent domain on agricultural production and program policies. Both the Director and the Governor may take actions if the eminent domain would create an unreasonably adverse effect.
As for the question about a withdrawal penalty, the law does allow the county to assess a penalty when a landowner withdraws land from the agricultural district program during the agricultural district enrollment period, which is a five-year period. If a landowner removes the land from the agricultural district, converts the land to a purpose other than agricultural production or an agricultural conservation program, or sells the land to another landowner who does not elect to continue in the agricultural district program, the landowner must pay a withdrawal penalty. The amount of the penalty depends on whether the land is also enrolled in the Current Agricultural Use Value program. See the different penalty calculations in Ohio Revised Code 929.02(D(1).
Read the agricultural district program law in Chapter 929 of the Ohio Revised Code and contact your county auditor to learn about how to enroll in the program.
My farmland is within the village limits and the village sent me a notice that I must cut a strip of tall grass on my land. Do I have to comply with this?
Yes. Ohio law allows a municipality such as a village to have vegetation, litter, and “noxious weeds” laws. These laws can set a maximum limit for the height of grass, require removal of litter on the property, and require ridding the land of “noxious weeds.” The purpose of the laws is to protect property values, protect public health by preventing pests and nuisances from accumulating, and keep noxious weeds from spreading to other properties. The village is within its legal authority to enforce its grass, litter, and noxious weeds laws on a farm property that is within the village limits. Failing to comply with an order by the village can result in a fine or financial responsibility for all expenses incurred by the village to remedy the problem.
Is it legal to pull water from a river or stream to irrigate land in Ohio?
Yes, as long as the withdrawal occurs on private land or with the consent of the public or private landowner. Registration with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources is required, however, if the amount withdrawn exceeds 10,000 gallons per day and the State has the ability to scale the 10,000 gallon amount back if the withdrawal is within an established groundwater stress area. Withdrawal registration information is available on the Division of Water Resources website.
Note that according to Ohio’s “reasonable use” doctrine, if a water withdrawal causes “unreasonable” harm to other water users, a legal action by harmed users could stop or curtail the use or allocate liability for the harm to the person who withdrew the water. To avoid such problems, a person withdrawing the water should ensure that the withdrawal will not cause “unreasonable” downstream effects.
An urban farmer wants to build a rooftop greenhouse to grow hemp and then wants to make and sell cannabis-infused prepared foods at a market on her property. Who regulates this industry and where would she go for guidance on legal and regulatory issues for these products?
Regulation and oversight of food products that contain cannabis is a combination of federal and state authority. Federal regulation is through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and state regulation is via the Ohio Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety Division. She should refer to these resources:
- U.S. - https://www.fda.gov/news-events/public-health-focus/fda-regulation-cannabis-and-cannabis-derived-products-including-cannabidiol-cbd#legaltosell
- Ohio - https://agri.ohio.gov/divisions/food-safety/resources/Hemp-Products
As for the growing of hemp, the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) regulates indoor hemp production in Ohio. There is a minimum acreage requirement for indoor production—she must have at least 1,000 square feet and 1,000 plants. See these resources from ODA:
A new Ohio law took effect last year that impacts some landowners who want to terminate their farm crop leases. If a farm lease does not include a termination date or a termination method, the law requires a landowner to provide termination notice to the tenant by September 1. The law was adopted to prevent late or otherwise untimely terminations by landowners that could adversely affect tenants.
It is important to note that the law only applies to verbal leases or written leases that do not include a termination date or method of notice of termination. If a written lease includes a termination date or method of notice, the terms of the lease apply and not the termination notice law. Also, the law does not apply to leases for pasture, timber, farm buildings, horticultural buildings, or equipment.
The notice can be provided to the tenant by hand, mail, fax, or email. If termination is provided by September 1, the lease is terminated either upon the date harvest is complete or December 31, whichever is earlier. While no specific language is required for the termination notice, it is good practice to include the date of notice, an identification of the leased farm and a statement that the lease will terminate on the completion of harvest or December 31. If termination is provided after September 1, the lease continues for another year unless the tenant voluntarily agrees to terminate the lease early.
A tenant is not subject to the new law and can terminate a lease after September 1 unless the leasing arrangement provides otherwise. Because it is generally easier for a landowner to find another tenant, even on short notice, the law protects only the tenant from untimely terminations, not landowners.
For more information, see Ohio’s New Statutory Termination Date for Farm Crop Leases law bulletin available at farmoffice.osu.edu.
It’s the time of year when many Ohio vegetable gardeners are wondering, “why in the world did I plant so many zucchini?” And it’s also when we start hearing the question, “is there any liability risk in giving away my garden produce?” The good news is that Ohio has a food donation immunity law. The law encourages food donations by granting liability protection to those who give perishable foods like garden produce to agencies that serve individuals in need. A new amendment to the law recently passed in Senate Bill 16 broadens the types of donations that qualify for liability protection. If you’re up to your ears in garden produce, you may want to know about the food donation immunity law.
Here's how the law works.
- The grant of immunity
The food donation immunity law is in Ohio Revised Code 2305.37. It states in Section B that a person who, “in good faith,” donates “perishable food” to an “agency” is not liable for harm that may arise if the food, when distributed to an “individual in need,” is not “fit for human consumption.”
- The donation must be made “in good faith” that the food is “fit for human consumption” when donated
There is not a definition for the term “in good faith,” but it’s a term commonly used in legal situations. It means that a person acted with an “honest intent” and not with an intent to deceive or conceal something. The food donation immunity law provides two conditions to help ensure a person is donating in good faith. First, the immunity only applies if a person determines, prior to making a donation, that the food is “fit for human consumption” at the time it is donated to an agency. The term “fit for human consumption,” though not defined by this law, means that it is edible and safe. But note there is no responsibility on the donor to ensure the food will be edible and safe after it is donated, when it is actually consumed or distributed. Second, when determining whether food is fit for consumption, a donor cannot act with gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct. These two conditions mean that if a donor doesn’t inspect the food at all before delivery or knows something happened to the food that could make it unsafe for consumption but donates it anyway, the law will not protect the donor from liability if the food causes harm.
- The law applies to “perishable food”
The law’s definition of “perishable food” is broad. It refers to any food that may spoil or otherwise become unfit for human consumption due to its nature, age, or physical condition. The definition includes fresh fruits and vegetables, fresh and processed meats, poultry, fish, seafood, dairy products, bakery products, eggs, refrigerated and frozen foods, and packaged foods. It also includes food prepared but not served by a food service operation such as a restaurant, caterer, or hotel, and gleaned foods, discussed below.
- Donations must be to “agencies” that serve “individuals in need”
Donations to friends and family don’t qualify for the liability protection—the law only applies to a donation to an “agency” that serves “individuals in need.” Several definitions and conditions are important.
- An “agency” is an organization that distributes perishable food to “individuals in need,” either directly or indirectly. The term includes any nonhospital, charitable nonprofit corporation organized under Ohio nonprofit laws, or nonprofit charitable association, group, institution, organization, or society. An “individual in need” is a person an agency determines to be eligible for food distribution due to poverty, illness, disability, infancy, or similar circumstances.
- A qualifying agency is one that does not charge a fee for the food. However, Senate Bill 16 recently amended the law to allow donations to an agency that charges an amount no more than the cost of handling the food. That change means even if individuals pay a food handling cost to receive the donated food, the donor of the food will receive immunity.
- Another section of the law, 2305.37(D), also grants immunity to an agency that distributes donated food as long as the agency determines the food is fit for human consumption when the food distribution occurs.
Ohio law also provides liability protection for “gleaning”
Growers can also be immune from liability when allowing someone else to pick or salvage the garden produce and donate it to an agency. This is referred to as "food gleaning" and Ohio law also provides liability protection to those who allow food gleaning. First, the gleaned food is considered “perishable food” and is covered by the food donation immunity law described above. Second, the food gleaning immunity law in Ohio Revised Code 2305.35 grants a landowner or operator immunity for physical injuries sustained by a gleaner during the gleaning process. The landowner or operator is not liable for injuries to a gleaner resulting from any risks or conditions of the property or any normal agricultural operations on the property.
Ready to donate?
Gardeners ready to donate excess garden produce first need to locate an agency that serves individuals in need. Find a local food bank, food pantry, soup kitchen, meals on wheels, or similar agency, and make sure the agency doesn’t charge individuals to receive the food or charges no more than the cost of handling the food. These resources can help locate an agency:
- Ample Harvest - https://ampleharvest.org/find-pantry/
- Ohio Victory Gardens - https://u.osu.edu/ohiovictorygardens/donating-your-victory/
- Ohio Soup Kitchens, Food Banks, Food Pantries - https://www.homelessshelterdirectory.org/foodbanks/state/ohio
Before delivering garden produce to tan agency, be sure to inspect the produce and ensure it is fit for consumption—clean, not spoiled, and edible. Don’t have time to pick and deliver? Find a food gleaner who may be willing to glean your garden and donate the food to an agency. Here’s a resource that lists Ohio food gleaners: https://nationalgleaningproject.org/gleaning-map/states/ohio/?fwp_state=oh.
When a landowner legally challenges an agency’s use of eminent domain to appropriate property, Ohio law requires a trial court to hold a hearing to determine the agency’s right to make the appropriation, according to a recent decision by the Ohio Supreme Court. The Court held that an appeal to a higher court is not permissible until the trial court holds such a hearing and rules on the issues raised in the hearing. For landowner Diane Less, the ruling means the trial court--the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas--must hold a hearing to determine whether Mill Creek MetroParks had the right to make the appropriation of her land and whether that appropriation is necessary.
The case is one of several lawsuits and long-running controversies over Mill Creek MetroPark’s use of eminent domain to appropriate land for a bike path. The Mahoning County disputes are one reason behind a current legislative proposal to revise Ohio’s eminent domain laws, which includes a prohibition against the use of eminent domain for recreational trails. The legislation is at a standstill, however, with many opponents lining up against the recreational trails and other provisions of the bill.
Basis for the decision
The current Mill Creek MetroParks v. Less case made its way to the Ohio Supreme Court after the Seventh District Court of Appeals reversed the Mahoning County court’s summary judgment decision that MetroParks was authorized to use eminent domain to take Less’ land. MetroParks appealed that decision to the Ohio Supreme Court. But rather than addressing the issue of authority to take the land, the high court focused on the procedures outlined in Chapter 163 of the Ohio Revised Code. The statutes “provide a uniform eminent domain procedure for all appropriations sought by public and private agencies,” including procedures for when a property owner contests an appropriation. The Court reviewed the statutory requirements in ORC 163.09, which require a trial court to hold a hearing when:
- A property owner files an answer to a petition for eminent domain that specifically denies the right to make the appropriation or the necessity for the appropriation,
- The answer alleges sufficient facts in support of the denial, and
- The appropriation is not sought in a time of war or other public exigency or not for the purpose of making or repairing roads.
When MetroParks filed the eminent domain action against Less, she did file an answer that denied the Park District’s right to make the appropriation and the necessity for the appropriation. Less also filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to rule in her favor and dismiss the case because there were no genuine issues of material fact in the case. The trial court denied her motion, however, and Less filed an appeal of that denial to the Seventh District Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court points out that the appeal should not have occurred, however, because the statutory procedures required the trial court to hold a hearing after it denied the summary judgment motion by Less. Nevertheless, the Seventh District ruled on the appeal, reaching a decision that agreed with Less’ argument that the Park District did not have authority to take her land.
The Supreme Court accepted the case for review, but its purpose was not to rule on the issue of whether there was authority for the use of eminent domain. Instead, the Court held that it had no jurisdiction to hear MetroPark’s appeal of the Seventh District’s decision, and that the Seventh District Appeals Court did not have jurisdiction to review the decision of the trial court. Because the trial court had failed to follow the statutory procedures for a hearing and decision on the authority and necessity of the appropriation, there was no “final appealable order” that either party could appeal to a higher court.
What happens next?
The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Seventh District Court of Appeals and sent the case back down to the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas. The county court must now hold a hearing to review the landowner’s arguments on the authority and necessity for the park’s appropriation. The court’s decision after that hearing will be an order that either party may choose to appeal to the Seventh District. The best answer to the question of what happens next, most likely, is that case will continue to roll on for quite some time.
A situation that can arise between landowners and tenants is the ownership of a crop upon the termination of a lease or transfer of the property. Like most legal questions, the answer depends upon the specifics of the situation. Sometimes, crops are part of the land and sometimes the crop is personal property and not part of the land. The following is a discussion of these different scenarios.
The most common scenario, and the most common type of lease, is for annual crops such as corn and soybeans. Annual crops are generally personal property and not part of the land. If a landowner transfers the land midway through a lease, the tenant will retain ownership of the crops and will have an opportunity to harvest the crops.
Wheat is a unique situation in that it is a carryover crop, planted in the fall and harvested in summer. The wheat will generally be personal property and owned by the tenant with one exception. If the wheat was planted by the tenant before a lease for the following year was established, a court may determine that the tenant planted the wheat at their own risk. Wheat should not be planted unless a lease for the following year is in effect.
Situations relating to perennial crops such as hay largely depend on timing. If the land is transferred shortly after the crop is established, the tenant may be able to continue harvesting the crop or more likely the landowner will be liable to the tenant for the cost of establishing the crop and possibly lost profits. If the land is transferred several years after the crop is established, the tenant may not have any claims to the crop. A court will largely look to the intentions of the landlord and tenant in rendering its opinion on the tenant’s rights.
All of the above scenarios can be avoided by a good, written lease. The lease should address the tenant’s rights to the crop in the event the land is transferred during the term of the lease. The landowner and tenant can agree to address the rights of the tenant, in the event the land is transferred, in any way they wish. For tenants and landowners in current leases, the lease should be reviewed to see how tenant’s rights are addressed in the event of a transfer of the land. For situations where there is no written lease or for new leases, be sure to include a provision to address the tenant’s rights to the crop.
Despite the arrival of summer and continuing disagreements over the state budget, Ohio legislators have been working on several pieces of legislation relevant to Ohio agriculture. All of the proposals are at the committee level but may see action before the Senate and House after the budget bill process ends. Here’s a summary of the ag related proposals currently under consideration.
Senate Bill 111 – Urban Agriculture
Senator Paula Hicks-Hudson (D-Toledo) targets barriers for farmers in urban settings in SB 111, which has had three hearings before the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. OSU Extension, the Ohio Municipal League, and several farmers have testified in support of the proposal, which contains three components:
- Establishes an Urban Farmer Youth Initiative Pilot Program to provide youth between the ages of six and eighteen living in urban areas with programming and support for farming and agriculture. The bill would appropriate $250,000 over 2024 and 2025 for the pilot, to be administered by OSU Extension and Central State Extension.
- Exempts temporary greenhouses, such as hoop houses, from the Ohio Building Code, consistent with Ohio law’s treatment of other agricultural buildings and structures.
- Codifies the Department of Taxation’s current treatment of separate smaller parcels of agricultural land under the same farming operation, which allows the acreages to be combined to meet the 10 acre eligibility requirement for Current Agricultural Use Valuation.
House Bill 64 – Eminent Domain
A proposal to make Ohio’s eminent domain laws more favorable to landowners remains on hold in the House Civil Justice Committee. HB 64 is receiving more opposition than support, with dozens of parties testifying against it in its fourth hearing on May 23. Read more about the proposal in our previous blog post.
House Bill 162 - Agriculture Appreciation Act
Rep. Roy Klopfenstein (R-Haviland) and Rep. Darrell Kick (R-Loudonville) introduced HB 162 on May 1 and the bill received quick and unanimous approval from the House Agriculture Committee on May 16. The proposal would make several designations under Ohio law already recognized by federal law:
- March 21 as "Agriculture Day."
- October 12 as "Farmer's Day."
- The week beginning on the Saturday before the last Saturday of February as "FFA Week."
- The week ending with the second Saturday of March as "4-H Week."
House Bill 166 – Temporary Agricultural Workers
A bill addressing municipal income taxes for H2-A agricultural workers has met opposition in the House Ways and Means Committee. HB 166, sponsored by Rep. Dick Stein (R-Norwalk) would subject foreign agricultural workers’ income to municipal income taxes. The current municipal tax base in Ohio is based on federal tax laws that exclude foreign agricultural worker pay from Social Security and Medicare taxes since the workers cannot use those programs, and HB 166 would remove that exclusion and add H2-A income to the municipal tax base. The bill would also require employers to withhold the taxes for the municipality of the workers’ residences. While municipal interests support the bill, Ohio Farm Bureau and other agricultural interests testified against it in its third hearing on June 13. Opponents argue that H2-A workers are not residents because they are “temporary,” that the proposal would have many potential adverse effects on how Ohio handles the H2-A program, and would hamper the ability of agricultural employers to use the H2-A program to hire employees.
House Bill 193 – Biosolid and biodigestion facilities
Biosolid lagoons and biodigestion facilities would have new legal requirements and be subject to local regulation under a proposal sponsored by Rep. Kevin Miller (R-Newark) and Rep. Brian Lampton (R-Beavercreek). HB 193 would grant county and township zoning authority over the lagoons and facilities, require a public meeting and county approval prior to seeking a facility permit from the Ohio EPA, require the Ohio EPA to develop rules requiring covers on new biosolid lagoons, and modify feedstock requirements for biodigestion facilities to qualify for Current Agricultural Use Valuation property tax assessment. HB 193 had its first hearing before the House Agriculture Committee on June 13.
House Bill 197 – Community Solar Development
A “community solar” proposal that did not make it through the last legislative session is back in a revised form. HB 197 proposes to define and encourage the development of “community solar facilities,” smaller scale solar facilities that are directly connected to an electric distribution utility’s distribution system and that create electricity only for at least three “subscribers.” The bill would establish incentives for placing such facilities on distressed sites and Appalachian region sites through a “Community Solar Pilot Program” and a “Solar Development Program.” Rep. James Hoops (R-Napoleon) and Sharon Ray (R-Wadsworth) introduced the bill on June 6, and it received its first hearing before the House Public Utilities Committee on June 21. “The goal of this legislation is to create a small-scale solar program that seeks to be a part of the solution to Ohio’s energy generation and aging infrastructure need,” stated sponsor Hoops.
House Bill 212 – Foreign ownership of property
Ohio joins a movement of states attempting to limit foreign ownership of property with the introduction of HB 212, the Ohio Property Protection Act. Sponsored by Representatives Angela King (R-Celina) and Roy Klopfenstein (R-Haviland), the proposal would prohibit foreign adversaries and certain businesses from owning real property in Ohio. The bill was introduced in the House on June 13 and has not yet been referred to a committee for review.