Recent Blog Posts
Some people think estate planning is simply preparing a will or trust. But these documents are only one part of an estate plan. Assets can also pass directly to beneficiaries using transfer on death or payable on death designations. Failing to coordinate those methods can produce results that end up being problematic.
A recent Ohio case provides a good example. In Estate of Edward M. Coughenour, Jr. (2026-Ohio-3060), the Twelfth District Court of Appeals considered a dispute involving a will, transfer-on-death designations, substantial farm debt, and real estate located in multiple states. The case demonstrates an important lesson for farm families: an estate plan must consider not only who receives each asset, but also how debts will be paid and whether an asset will even become part of the probate estate.
The Estate Plan
Edward Coughenour's estate included real estate in Ohio and a 40% interest in 1,900-acres of farmland in Tennessee. Both the Ohio and Tennessee properties were subject to debt totaling approximately $2.7 million.
Coughenour's will left his Ohio real estate to his friend, Justin, and his 40% interest in the Tennessee property to his daughter, Dara. Justin and Dara were also equal beneficiaries of the remaining assets in the estate. The will directed that Coughenour's debts be paid from his estate.
Coughenour had also signed transfer-on-death affidavits for his Ohio real estate. Those affidavits named Justin as the beneficiary of the Ohio property. As a result, the Ohio real estate transferred directly to Justin when Coughenour died rather than passing through his probate estate. That distinction became critically important.
Assets with Direct Beneficiaries Avoid Probate
Some assets pass according to a will, but others pass directly to a designated beneficiary. Transfer-on-death property, payable-on-death accounts, life insurance, retirement accounts, and other assets with valid beneficiary designations pass outside the probate estate. This means that the probate court's authority is generally limited to assets that actually belong to the probate estate. Assets that pass directly to a beneficiary do not become estate assets simply because the decedent had a will or because the estate owes debts.
That was the central issue in the Coughenour case. The court held that the Ohio properties transferred to Justin upon Coughenour's death under the transfer-on-death affidavits. Consequently, those properties were not estate assets and were not available to pay the estate's debts. The result was that the estate still owed the debt, but the Ohio properties that had also secured that debt had passed outside probate.
The Remaining Estate Assets Had to Pay the Debt
The estate did not have sufficient personal property to pay its debts. Under Ohio law, when estate assets are insufficient, real estate belonging to the estate may have to be sold to pay those obligations. Because the Ohio properties had transferred directly to Justin and were not part of the probate estate, the Tennessee property was the primary significant estate asset available to satisfy the debt. Justin, acting as executor, sought to sell the Tennessee property for that purpose.
Dara objected and argued that the sale would effectively consume the property she had been given under the will while benefiting Justin. Selling the Tennessee property would help satisfy the debt secured by both the Tennessee and Ohio properties, while Justin retained the Ohio property he had received directly through the transfer-on-death designations.
The court concluded that Justin was following the directions of the will and Ohio law. The will directed that the decedent's debts be paid from the estate, and the Ohio properties were not part of the estate. The court therefore affirmed that the debt should be paid out of the Tennessee land that was to go to Dara and that the court had no authority to require the debt be paid out of the Ohio land that was to go to Justin.
A Will Does Not Control Everything
One of the most important estate planning lessons from this case is that a will or trust does not necessarily control the disposition of every asset a person owns. In this case, the transfer on death affidavit caused the Ohio property to bypass the will and go directly to Justin. This is why beneficiary designations and other non-probate transfers must be coordinated with the rest of an estate plan. It is not enough to prepare a will and assume that it determines where all property goes.
For example, a farmer may have:
- Machinery and livestock owned individually and transferred through a will;
- Bank accounts with payable-on-death beneficiaries;
- Life insurance with named beneficiaries;
- Retirement accounts with beneficiary designations;
- Real estate subject to transfer-on-death designations; and
- Property owned by a trust.
Each of those assets may follow different rules at death. An estate plan must consider how all of them work together.
Debt Planning Is Just as Important as Asset Planning
The Coughenour case also illustrates another important point: deciding who receives an asset is only part of the planning process. A good estate plan must also consider what debts exist and how those debts will be paid.
A farm estate can include substantial debt. Land, machinery, livestock, and other assets may be pledged as collateral for loans. If some assets pass directly to beneficiaries outside probate while other assets remain in the estate, the source of payment for debts can become very important.
That appears to have been the practical problem in this case. The Ohio and Tennessee properties secured the same debt, but the Ohio properties passed directly to Justin outside probate. The Tennessee property remained subject to the estate administration and was therefore the significant estate asset available to pay the estate's obligations.
The court noted that Coughenour knew about the debt when he executed his estate planning documents. It also noted that he could have included provisions in his will to address how the debt would affect the property given to Dara, but he did not do so. We will never know if Coughenour actually intended for Dara to be responsible for all the debt or if using the transfer-on-death affidavits for the Ohio property was an unintended oversight. The court was unable to guess as to Coughenour’s intentions so it adheres to the law with caused Dara’s assets to be solely responsible for the entire debt.
Summary
The dispute in this case illustrates how the interaction between a will, transfer-on-death designations, secured debt, and probate administration can produce unexpected consequences. The key lesson is that estate planning requires coordination. A will should not be drafted in isolation from transfer-on-death designations, beneficiary designations, jointly owned property, trusts, business entities, and outstanding debt.
Just as importantly, farm families should understand that assets with direct beneficiaries generally avoid probate. Because those assets are not part of the probate estate, they are generally not subject to the probate court's authority in the same way as estate assets. That can have significant consequences when the estate must pay debts or when the will attempts to distribute assets differently from an existing beneficiary designation.
A carefully drafted and coordinated estate plan can help ensure that assets pass as intended, debts are addressed appropriately, and family members are less likely to find themselves in costly disputes after a death. As this case demonstrates, the time to identify potential conflicts between estate planning documents and beneficiary designations is before death, not after the family is left asking a probate court to sort out the consequences.
You may read the court's decision in its entirety here.
For many small business owners, the federal government’s beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirement has been a source of confusion, frustration, and uncertainty since the Corporate Transparency Act took effect. That uncertainty has now largely come to an end.
On August 11, 2026, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a final rule that permanently exempts U.S. companies and U.S. persons from the federal BOI reporting requirements under the Corporate Transparency Act. The rule makes permanent the changes FinCEN first adopted on an interim basis in March 2025. For most small businesses formed in the United States, including many farm LLCs and other closely held businesses, the practical result is that there is no longer a federal requirement to file a BOI report with FinCEN.
What Is BOI Reporting?
The Corporate Transparency Act created a new federal reporting requirement beginning in 2024. The law generally required corporations, limited liability companies, and similar entities to report information about the individuals who owned or controlled the entity to FinCEN.
The information was referred to as "beneficial ownership information," or BOI. A beneficial owner generally meant an individual who either exercised substantial control over the company or owned or controlled at least 25 percent of its ownership interests. The purpose of the reporting requirement was to create a federal database that could be used to help combat money laundering, terrorism financing, and other illicit financial activity.
The original rules applied to a large number of ordinary U.S. businesses. As a result, small businesses, including many family farm entities, were required to determine whether they had to file, identify their beneficial owners, and comply with continuing reporting requirements when ownership or control information changed.
U.S. Companies Are No Longer Required to File
Under FinCEN's final rule, entities created under the laws of the United States are exempt from the BOI reporting requirements. This means that a typical Ohio limited liability company, corporation, or other entity created by filing with the Ohio Secretary of State is no longer required to file a BOI report with FinCEN simply because it is a domestic business. The exemption applies regardless of whether the business is large or small and regardless of whether the business is owned by one person or multiple family members.
What Happened to Previously Filed Reports?
The change also affects BOI reports that U.S. businesses and U.S. individuals have already submitted.
FinCEN announced that it intends to delete information about individuals that it reasonably believes was provided by a U.S. person. Consequently, a business that previously filed a BOI report does not need to file an updated report merely because ownership, management, or other information has changed. Domestic U.S. companies are now exempt from the reporting requirement.
Foreign Companies Are Not Exempt
The end of BOI reporting for U.S. companies does not mean that FinCEN has eliminated beneficial ownership reporting altogether. The final rule continues to require certain foreign entities to report. Under the revised definition, a "reporting company" is generally an entity formed under the law of a foreign country that has registered to do business in a U.S. state by filing a document with a secretary of state or similar office.
Even these foreign reporting companies receive significant relief under the new rule. They generally do not have to report the beneficial ownership information of U.S. persons. Instead, the reporting requirements focus on the foreign entity and its foreign beneficial owners. Businesses with foreign ownership or foreign organizational structures should therefore carefully review the new rules rather than assuming that BOI reporting has disappeared in every circumstance.
What Does This Mean for Farm Businesses?
The new rule should simplify entity administration for many farm families. Farm businesses frequently use LLCs, corporations, and other entities to operate their farm business and hold assets such as farmland, equipment, and livestock. Under the original BOI rules, each entity potentially required an analysis of its reporting status, beneficial owners, company applicants, and continuing reporting obligations. Those federal BOI compliance concerns can now largely be largely ignored by U.S.-formed farm entities.
This does not, however, eliminate the importance of keeping accurate ownership records. Operating agreements, corporate records, stock ledgers, membership records, estate planning documents, and other business records should still accurately reflect who owns and controls the business. The elimination of federal BOI reporting is a reduction in federal reporting, not a reason to stop maintaining good business records.
After a stretch of heavy rain across Ohio these past few weeks, several flash-flood events left farm families dealing with soaked barns, damaged equipment, and water-logged homes. In the aftermath, we started fielding a familiar question: does my insurance policy actually cover this?
The honest answer is: it depends on what caused the water to show up in the first place.
The distinction, between "water damage" and "flood damage," is one of the most misunderstood corners of a farm insurance policy. Once a barn or basement is standing in a foot of water, the two can look identical. But insurers draw a hard line between them, and which side of that line your claim falls on can mean the difference between a check in the mail and a denial letter.
As always, your own policy's exact wording controls, and the following is general education, not a review of any specific contract. If you're facing a real claim dispute, read your policy's actual exclusions and endorsements, or work with your agent, before assuming either way.
The General Rule
Most homeowners and farm insurance policies cover water damage to dwellings, barns, and personal property, but specifically exclude flood damage. Coverage for flood losses almost always requires a separate flood insurance policy, typically through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) or a private flood insurance carrier, rather than anything built into your standard farm policy.
Assuming the two are covered the same way is a costly mistake. A farm operation that loses a barn full of equipment to what turns out to be a "flood," without a separate flood policy in place, can be looking at a five- or six-figure gap between what was expected and what actually gets paid.
Where the Line Actually Falls
Insurers generally draw the line based on where the water came from.
Water damage typically means water released from a sudden, internal building system or a localized, sudden event — a burst pipe, a failed water heater, or rain that gets in through a storm-damaged roof or window (usually tied to wind damage). It's treated as a contained, building-specific problem.
Flood damage typically means water from a broader, external natural event — an overflowing river, creek, or pond; storm surge; or surface water that accumulates across the land because heavy rain hasn't drained. The industry's rough test is whether the water came from a general event affecting the surrounding land or multiple properties, rather than a specific building system.
Water seeping in through a foundation or basement wall almost always falls on the flood side of that line and needs separate coverage (even though it can feel like an "internal" problem because it shows up inside the house).
One more wrinkle: even squarely internal water damage is only covered if it's sudden and unexpected. A pipe that's been slowly leaking for months, and that you knew about, generally won't be covered. Insurers treat that as a maintenance failure, not a sudden loss. Additionally, sewer or drain backup sits in its own category: many policies exclude it by default, and you'll often need to add a specific endorsement to get it covered at all.
Examples From the Farm
Water damage: A pipe bursts in the barn and soaks stored equipment. This is a classic sudden, internal loss; typically covered under the standard farm policy.
Flood damage: A nearby creek overflows its banks during a spring storm and submerges the same barn. This is typically excluded as flood damage and would need a separate flood policy.
Storm damage: This is where many classification fights happen. Wind-driven rain pushed through a window seal during a storm probably reads as a windstorm loss. But if that same rain event also causes broader water to rise and infiltrate the structure, an insurer may reclassify some or all of the loss as flood damage instead.
Sewer backup: If your policy includes sewer/drain backup coverage, count yourself fortunate because many policies don't, without a specific endorsement. But even with that endorsement in place, a backup caused by an overwhelmed municipal or drainage system during a major storm surge may get reclassified as flood damage, and might not be covered by the sewer/drain endorsement at all.
A Note on Gray Areas
Courts around the country have wrestled with exactly where "surface water" ends and ordinary water damage begins, and case law offers a useful insight for farm operations: water that changes character before it reaches a structure can sometimes fall outside the flood exclusion. In a few notable cases, rainwater that was collected and channeled through a stormwater drainage system, or snowmelt runoff diverted through manmade trenches, was found to have lost its status as "surface water" by the time it caused damage. The result? The damage was not considered flood damage and therefore covered under your standard policy. This matters for farms specifically, since drainage tile, ditches, and field grading regularly redirect water before it ever reaches a barn or home. If a claim gets denied as "flood," it's worth asking how the water actually traveled to get there because the answer isn't always as simple as the denial letter suggests.
Why It Matters
This is another reminder that farm families are best served by actually reading their policy and building a real relationship with their insurance agent (before a loss happens, not after). Understanding the difference between water damage and flood damage, and knowing where your coverage has gaps, can be the difference between a manageable setback and a loss that seriously threatens the farm's bottom line.
A few questions worth asking your agent directly:
- Does my policy cover sewer/drain backup, and if so, under what circumstances?
- What would it cost to add a flood policy through the NFIP or a private carrier for my buildings and stored equipment?
- How does my insurer distinguish wind-driven rain from flood in a mixed storm event?
- Are my barns and outbuildings covered on the same terms as my home, or do they need separate scheduling?
Check Out Our Resources
Tags: Insurance, farm insurance, Flood Damage, Water Damage. Flood Insurance
Comments: 0
Farmers who operate through an LLC, S corporation, or certain other business entities are affected by significant changes in USDA payment eligibility rules. Beginning with the 2026 crop year, qualifying business entities will receive more favorable treatment for purposes of USDA payment limitations. The changes give farmers greater flexibility to use business entities for liability protection and other business purposes without unnecessarily limiting access to USDA farm programs.
LLCs and S corporations now receive pass-through treatment
Historically, the way a farm was structured could significantly affect its eligibility for USDA program payments. An operation conducted as an LLC or S corporation were subject to a single payment limitation at the entity level, even if multiple owners were actively involved in the farming operation.
Under the new rules, beginning with the 2026 crop year, qualifying LLCs and S corporations may receive multiple payment limitations. Each member of a qualifying pass-through entity who meets the applicable requirements for being actively engaged in farming can help qualify the entity for expanded payments.
This is an important change for farms that have used, or are considering using, an LLC or S corporation for business purposes. Farmers now have a greater ability to obtain the liability protection and organizational benefits of an entity while still having multiple qualifying members considered for USDA payment eligibility. Keep in mind that simply owning an interest in an LLC or S corporation is not enough. Members must satisfy the requirements for being actively engaged in farming, including making the required capital contributions and being actively involved in the farming operation.
Before making any changes solely for FSA programs, farmers should be sure to discuss the potential change with their attorney, accountant and crop insurance agent. Changes to business entities can have tax, estate planning and crop insurance coverage ramifications. Consulting with this team of advisors will help ensure that the correct decision is made for the business structure of the farming operation.
LLCs and S corporations must update their Farm Operating Plans for 2026
There is a special rule for the first year of these changes. For program year 2026 only, farms operating as an LLC, S corporation, or another newly qualifying pass-through entity must file an updated Farm Operating Plan with FSA by September 15, 2026. This deadline is particularly important because FSA needs current information regarding the ownership and structure of the entity and the contributions of its members. A farm that has been operating as an LLC or S corporation should not assume that its existing information on file with FSA is sufficient under the new rules. Farmers operating through one of these entities should contact their local FSA county office as soon as possible to determine what updates are needed. After 2026, FSA will generally return to using June 1 as the date for determining ownership interests in an entity.
Members can be paid wages or management compensation without being disqualified
Another important change addresses a concern that has existed for members of farm entities who contribute labor or management to the operation. Under the updated rules, members of an entity may receive compensation for their labor and management contributions and still use those same contributions to help qualify as actively engaged in farming. In other words, being paid wages or other compensation for work performed for the entity does not, by itself, prevent that member from using the labor or management contribution to satisfy the actively engaged in farming requirements.
This change provides more consistent treatment among different types of business entities. It is particularly important for LLCs and S corporations that compensate members or shareholders for the work they perform in the farming operation. Under previous programs, a farm had to choose between compensating an owner for labor or management and having that owner's contribution recognized for payment eligibility purposes.
ARC and PLC payment limit increases
The new provisions also increase the payment limitation for the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) programs. Beginning with the 2025 crop year, the payment limitation increased from $125,000 to $155,000. The limitation will be adjusted annually for inflation going forward.
More Information
For more information on the new payment limitation rules, be sure to join The National Agricultural Law Center’s webinar titled Payment Limitations, Eligibility, & Ag Tax Considerations. The webinar will be held on September 16 at noon. The webinar is free but registration is required. Registration is available here.
On August 12, the Ohio Supreme Court released its opinion Camara v. Gill Dairy, L.L.C. The majority opinion was written by Justice Brunner and joined by all of the justices, except for one section that Justice Fischer did not join. The case involves an injury sustained by an employee from equipment on the dairy farm. The case reached the Ohio Supreme Court because the employee, Camara, appealed a decision from Ohio’s Twelfth District Court of Appeals. We covered that decision in an Ag Law Harvest post back in 2023 (available here).
Background
The lawsuit, originally filed in Madison County Court of Common Pleas, alleged that Jose Camara, the employee, suffered severe injuries while operating a piece of machinery called a sand spreader. The Court explains the incident, saying that the sand spreader was connected to a tractor by a power take-off (PTO) shaft, which was equipped with a hydraulic motor that caused the PTO shaft to rotate while in use. However, the safety guards on the PTO shaft were not there on the day Camara was injured in 2019. Camara explained that he observed an oil leak in the sand spreader and first turned the sand spreader off to look for the source of the leak. He could not identify the source of the leak, so he turned the sand spreader on to investigate the matter further. As he looked for the leak, a piece of clothing on his left leg got caught in the unguarded, rotating PTO shaft. The rotation of the PTO shaft pulled Camara toward the machine, then threw him over the shaft to the other side of the tractor. Camara suffered severe and permanent injuries to both legs and his left shoulder, requiring skin grafts and multiple surgeries.
At trial, the jury found the dairy farm liable and ordered it to pay over $1.9 million in damages. Gill Dairy appealed to the Twelfth District Court of Appeals arguing that its failure to repair or replace does not amount to a “deliberate removal” of the safety guards from the PTO shaft and sand spreader, and the appellate court agreed, and vacated and reversed the jury’s judgement. Camara appealed the Twelfth District’s ruling, taking the lawsuit to the Ohio Supreme Court.
Guiding statutory language
Before getting into the majority’s opinion, it is first important to understand the statute at the center of this case. Ohio Revised Code (ORC) section 2745.01 reads in part (emphasis added):
(A) In an action brought against an employer by an employee…for damages resulting from an intentional tort committed by the employer during the course of employment, the employer shall not be liable unless the plaintiff proves that the employer committed the tortious act with the intent to injure another or with the belief that the injury was substantially certain to occur.
(B) As used in this section, "substantially certain" means that an employer acts with deliberate intent to cause an employee to suffer an injury, a disease, a condition, or death.
(C) Deliberate removal by an employer of an equipment safety guard or deliberate misrepresentation of a toxic or hazardous substance creates a rebuttable presumption that the removal or misrepresentation was committed with intent to injure another if an injury or an occupational disease or condition occurs as a direct result.
In other words, if an employee is harmed on the job and the employee proves that there was an intent to injure, or a belief that injury would occur, the employer can be found liable at trial. Further, deliberate removal of a safety guard on equipment helps the employee’s argument, because it creates a presumption under the law that there was an intent by the employer to injure, although the employer may provide evidence to rebut such a claim.
Questions before the Ohio Supreme Court
The Twelfth District’s decision conflicted with a Third District Court of Appeals decision on what an employee must prove to establish “deliberate removal” of a safety guard, so the Ohio Supreme Court agreed to hear to the case. In addition to that conflict, in his appeal, Camara asked the Ohio Supreme Court to answer two questions. The first question is whether an injured employee must establish both the deliberate removal of an equipment safety guard and the employer’s intent to never replace the guard in order to trigger presumption of intent to injure under ORC 2745.01(C). The second question is whether the appellate court should have reviewed only the evidence provided in the pretrial stage or the evidence presented at trial when making their decision.
Question 1
The Ohio Supreme Court, with Justice Brunner writing for the majority, found that an injured employee does not have to establish both the deliberate removal of a safety guard and the employer’s intent to not replace the guard to be entitled to the “rebuttable presumption” under ORC 2745.01(C). Firstly, according to Justice Brunner, the presumption available to a plaintiff under the statute “may…be established by either direct or circumstantial evidence,” whereas the appellate court said that only direct evidence could be used to show proof of an “intent to injure another” under ORC 2745.01(A) and (C). Secondly, an injured employee only needs to provide evidence that the employer deliberately removed an equipment safety guard, not that they “specifically decided not to reattach” the guard. Brunner reasons that the “plain text” of ORC 2745.01(C) entitles the employee to the rebuttable presumption that the removal was committed with the intent to harm another. This means evidence regarding the employer’s decision not to replace a safety guard is not required for the presumption to apply. This reasoning also answered the conflict between the two appellate decisions—an employee does not have to prove both that their employer had knowledge of a missing safety guard and that they made a “deliberate decision” not to replace it. The knowledge that the safety guard is missing is enough.
Question 2
In their appeal to the Twelfth District, Gill Dairy asked the court to review the lower court’s denial of summary judgement in their favor. Summary judgement is granted when a judge finds that no genuine issue of material fact (a disagreement about facts) exists between the parties. Thus, the case is decided without continuing on to a jury trial. When overturning the lower court’s denial of summary judgement, the Twelfth District Court only looked at the evidence provided at the summary judgement stage, and not the evidence provided at trial. The Ohio Supreme Court found that this was an error; when deciding whether there is a genuine issue of material fact, the appellate court must review “the record as it existed both at the time of the summary-judgement ruling and [at] the conclusion of the trial.” Justice Fischer did not join this part of the opinion.
What might this mean for my farm?
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that an injured employee must only prove that an employer has knowledge of missing safety equipment, not that the employer deliberately removed them or decided not to replace them. What is more, this statutory rebuttable presumption may be proved with either direct or circumstantial evidence. Therefore, to protect yourself and employees, and to limit your liability, it is advisable to keep track of your equipment and replace missing safety guards and other safety measures as needed. However, this does not mean that every case will find that the employer is at fault—the presumption of intent to injure is rebuttable. Thus, in similar cases, the employer may provide evidence to a court to disprove such a claim, and a judge or jury may find such evidence persuasive. The bottom line is to protect your employees, yourself, your farm, and to avoid lengthy lawsuits like this one, safety guards on equipment should be properly installed and replaced as necessary.
Tags: Employer Intentional Tort, Ohio case law, Ohio Supreme Court, safety, Workplace Safety
Comments: 0
Western Ohio Cropland Values and Cash Rents 2025-26
Barry Ward, Leader, Production Business Management
The Ohio Cropland Values and Cash Rents study was conducted from January through April in 2026. 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 government personnel. This is a non-scientific survey that relies on those professionals willing to complete this survey. Many survey respondents do respond each year, but there is a percentage that are new respondents each year.
The study results are based on 132 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.
Results from the Ohio Cropland Values and Cash Rents Survey show cropland values in western Ohio are expected to see minimal change in 2026 as compared to 2025. Depending on the region and land class in this survey, cropland value change is expected to range from a -0.1% to +0.9%. Cash rents are expected to range from no change to an increase of 1.5 percent in 2026 depending on the region and land class.
Tight profit margins and worsening liquidity issues continue to weigh on cropland values and cash rents while still reasonable farm equity positions and elevated property taxes continue to support values and rents. Cropland values and cash rents are expected to increase minimally in 2026 although crop prices, input costs and yields will help determine where values and rents end the year.
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. Local supply and demand factors are the primary drivers influencing values and rents.
Key factors affecting cropland values and rental rates 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 Croplands Values and Cash Rents 2025-26 survey summary report is available for viewing and download:
https://farmoffice.osu.edu/farm-management-tools/farm-management-publications/cash-rents
It's been a busy year in Washington and farmers, landowners, and ag professionals are left trying to keep up. To help cut through the noise, we're hosting a live-streamed roundtable discussion with special guest Harrison Pittman, Director of the National Agricultural Law Center to break down federal issues affecting agriculture.
What we'll cover:
- Where things stand on the Farm Bill
- The federal budget, continuing resolutions, and shutdown risk
- H-2A and employment law, including the impact of the recent Supreme Court ruling on protected status
- The latest on 1099 reporting requirements
- The final rule on Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) reporting
- The Supreme Court case on the Endangered Species Act and what it could mean for landowners
- The current state of tariffs and the administration's latest trade actions
- New FSA rules on business entities and payment limitations
Whether you're a farmer, landowner, attorney, or ag professional, this roundtable is designed to give you more insight on how these federal developments could affect your operation or your clients.
Cant' watch live? The session will be recorded, so you won't miss out on the discussion either way!
Date: August 21
Time: 10:00 - 11:30 A.M.
To register or watch the recordings visit: go.osu.edu/farmofficelive
The deadline is looming for farmland owners to notify their tenant operators of the intent to terminate a verbal farm lease that doesn’t include a termination date. A landowner who attempts to terminate such a lease after September 1 could find themselves in a legal dispute with the tenant operator. That’s because Ohio’s statutory termination date states that if an agricultural crop lease agreement does not provide for a termination date or a method for giving notice of termination, then the landowner who wants to terminate the leasing arrangement must do so by giving a written notice of termination on or before September 1. Failing to do so means the leasing arrangement will continue for another lease period.
Here are several key things to know about the statutory termination date:
The parties can agree to a different termination date. If the landowner and tenant have already agreed to a termination date or a process for giving notice of a termination, the statutory termination date law does not apply. Whatever the parties agreed to dictates how the parties terminate the lease.
Ways of giving the notice. A landowner must give a written notice of termination, not a verbal notice. However, the landowner can use U.S. mail, personal delivery, fax, or e-mail to deliver the notice. The law does not specifically address using a text to send a termination notice, so landowners should avoid terminating the lease by text.
Termination language. The law does not require any specific language for the termination. Recommended information to include in the termination is the date of the notice, a clear identification of the leased property, and a statement of the date the lease will terminate, such as “on December 31, 2026” or “upon completion of harvest.”
The statutory termination date doesn’t apply to tenants. Ohio’s statutory termination date only applies to landowners, not to tenant operators.
The law creates a legal remedy for tenant operators. By requiring the landowner to deliver notice of termination by September 1, the law establishes a legal right for a tenant operator to challenge a termination given after that date. The tenant operator can argue that the termination is invalid because it did not meet the deadline. Legal remedies the tenant operator could seek include requiring the lease to continue for another lease period or paying damages for costs of the late termination, such as purchased inputs or completed field work. The law gives the tenant operator leverage to negotiate these remedies or, alternatively, to take the matter to court.
An example. To illustrate how the statutory termination law works, here’s a situation we’ve often seen in verbal farmland leases. Landowner Smith and Tenant Jones verbally agreed to a crop lease ten years ago and never discussed how or when the lease would end. Each year, Tenant Jones continues farming the land and paying the cash rent in April and December. The two have talked very little other than the two times they discussed increases in the rental rate and once when they talked about a drainage improvement needed on the land. Landowner Smith passes away in June, and his three children inherit the land. Tenant Jones harvests the crop, pays the second half of the rental payment to Landowner Smith’s estate in December, and purchases his inputs for the following crop year. In January, the children notify Tenant Jones by e-mail that they want to terminate the leasing arrangement. Because the children delivered the notice after September 1, the termination violates the statutory termination date. Tenant Jones has a legal argument that the termination is invalid and should continue for another year or alternatively, that he should receive damages for costs and losses he incurred due to the late termination.
Don’t leave your lease to chance. Many landowners and tenant operators use a verbal crop lease arrangement, but that’s a risky practice. The parties can reduce leasing risk easily by using a written farmland lease. Learn about how to establish an enforceable lease in this earlier blog post and visit our farmland leasing resources in the law library on the Farm Office.
The Ohio Farm Transition Network (OFTN) is hosting a series of regional, one-day professional training events designed to build a more unified and effective approach to farm transition planning across Ohio. The training series will bring together agricultural service providers from a wide range of disciplines to strengthen expertise, foster collaboration, and improve the quality of transition support available to Ohio farm families.
Attorneys, accountants, lenders, financial advisors, insurance professionals, Extension educators, and other agricultural professionals are encouraged to attend. The sessions are designed to promote cross-disciplinary understanding and establish consistent terminology and best practices among professionals who play a vital role in helping farm families successfully navigate transition and estate planning.
Participants will receive practical guidance on key topics including farm transition strategies, legal business structures, tax considerations, financial planning tools, and a lender's perspective on transition planning. The training sessions are open to both OFTN members and non-members, providing an excellent opportunity for professional development, networking, and alignment with emerging industry best practices.
The training series supports OFTN's mission to strengthen the future of Ohio agriculture by providing comprehensive, consistent, and accessible farm transition planning resources. Through improved coordination among service providers, OFTN seeks to empower farm families to address transition challenges, preserve farm legacies, and ensure the long-term sustainability and vitality of Ohio's agricultural communities.
Training Locations and Dates
The regional training sessions will be offered at the following locations:
- September 30, 2026 – Young's Dairy, Springfield
- October 1, 2026 – Bell Manor, Chillicothe
- October 12, 2026 – Putnam County Educational Service Center, Ottawa
- October 27, 2026 – Milestone Event Center, Norwalk
- October 29, 2026 – Pritchard Laughlin Civic Center, Cambridge
Participation in this training program is available to both OFTN members and non-members. The attendance fee is $100, and registration closes two weeks ahead each respective training.
The Ohio Farm Transition Network extends its sincere appreciation to the organizations whose support has been instrumental in funding and launching this statewide initiative. Special thanks to Ohio Farm Bureau, AgCredit, Farm Credit Mid-America, Nationwide, Ohio Corn & Wheat, Ohio Soybean Council, Ohio Department of Agriculture, USDA Farm Service Agency, and The Ohio State University Extension for their commitment to strengthening farm transition planning resources and helping secure the future of Ohio agriculture.
By establishing a shared framework for farm transition planning, these training sessions will help Ohio's agricultural professionals deliver more reliable, coordinated, and effective support to farm families preparing for the future.
This training also fulfills one of the requirements for OFTN membership; however, it is open to both members and non-members. If you would like to apply for membership, visit go.osu.edu/oftnmembership. To register for a one-day training or learn more, visit go.osu.edu/OFTN-seminars or contact Ryanna Tietje (Tietje.9@osu.edu) for more information.
OSU Extension Announces Two-Day Tax Schools for Tax Practitioners & Agricultural & Natural Resources Income Tax Issues Webinar
Jeff Lewis & Barry Ward, Income Tax Schools at The Ohio State University
For over 60 years, Ohio State University has helped tax preparers stay sharp, confident, and ready for filing season. Whether you're a seasoned preparer looking to stay current, a farmer or farmland owner navigating your own returns, or a new professional just getting started, our Income Tax Schools have something for you.
Why tax professionals keep coming back
Our instructors don't just teach - they work in the tax industry every day. That means you're learning from people who understand the real problems you'll face when preparing individual, business, and farm returns, not just the theory behind them. Our two-day schools even bring in instructors directly from the IRS and the Ohio Department of Taxation, so you're getting the most current, accurate guidance available.
We don't just get you through the class. We get you through the filing season.
What you'll get:
Registration for our 2-day schools (or our convenient 4-part webinar series) includes:
- A hard copy of the 600+ page National Income Tax Workbook, prepared by the Land Grant University Tax Education Foundation (LGUTEF)
- Access to past workbooks
- The chance to order the 2027 Checkpoint Federal Tax Handbook at a substantial discount
- 50% off our Ethics/PSR Webinar
Want a preview? Check out a sample chapter from a past workbook at taxworkbook.com/about-the-tax-workbook.
2026 Schools — Dates & Locations
Oct. 29-30 Ole Zim’s Wagon Shed, Gibsonburg (Fremont)
Nov. 2-3 Howard Johnson by Wyndham, Lima
Nov. 4-5 Presidential Banquet Center, Kettering (Dayton)
Nov. 9-10 Ashland University, John C. Myers Convocation Center, Ashland
Nov. 16-17 Muskingum County Conference and Welcome Center, Zanesville
Nov. 19-20 Hartville Kitchen, Hartville
Dec. 2-3 Nationwide & Ohio Farm Bureau 4-H Center, Columbus
Dec. 7, 8, 10, 11 Four-Part Webinar Series, Zoom
Special Offerings
- Intro to Tax Preparation Course (Nov. 23-24): Perfect for beginning tax professionals. We start with the basics and build your confidence, and by the end of Day 2, you'll have completed a full sample return. We will be offering the course in-person in Columbus, Ohio and simultaneously online.
- Ethics Webinar (Dec. 4): A focused two-hour session, approved for continuing education credit by the IRS and the Ohio Accountancy Board.
- Ag Tax Issues Webinar (Dec. 14): Designed specifically for tax practitioners who work with farmers and rural landowners, or for farmers and farmland owners preparing their own returns. This session dives into the key topics and new legislation shaping agricultural tax returns.
Topics covered across our two-day schools include:
- Gift Tax
- Payroll and Estimated Tax
- Business Entity Tax Issues
- Restaurant and Hospitality Industries
- Individual Tax Issues
- Capital Gains and Losses
- Business Tax Issues
- IRS Issues
- Agricultural and Natural Resources Tax Issues
- Retirement Issues
- New and Expiring Legislation
- Rulings and Cases
Ready to register?
Registration for 2026 is open now: go.osu.edu/tax2026. If you'd rather register by mail or need an alternative option, just email taxschools@osu.edu.
For more information, you can contact Barry Ward or Jeff Lewis at taxschools@osu.edu. They can also be reached by phone. Barry Ward - 614-688-3959, Jeff Lewis - 614-247-1720