Recent Blog Posts
Farm transition planning is an essential process for agricultural operations. However, identifying and tracking assets and resources and preparing for transition planning can present significant challenges for farm families. To assist with these tasks, Ohio State University Extension has developed the Farm Asset and Resource Management Spreadsheet (FARMS), designed to provide a structured approach to organizing farm transition information.
What is FARMS?
FARMS is an Excel-based resource designed to support farm families and agricultural professionals in collecting and systematically organizing all necessary information related to farm transition planning. Whether at the preliminary stage or already engaged in detailed succession planning, FARMS enables users to input and manage varying levels of data effectively. See example screenshots below for further explanation.
What Information Does FARMS Collect?
Farms collects all the following information:
- Family and beneficiary names and contact information
- Bank accounts
- Financial Accounts
- Life Insurance
- Business Entities
- Real Estate
- Personal Property
- Farm Property
- Debt information
- Designations for executor, trustee, power of attorney, guardian
What Does Farms Do with the Collected Information?
FARMS uses the information provided by the user to do the following:
- Help ensure assets are titled to avoid probate
- Determine net worth and value of estate
- Calculate estate tax liability
- Allocate assets and net worth between spouses
- Allocate assets among beneficiaries to determine how much each beneficiary will receive from the transition plan
- Provide information that will be needed to complete wills, trusts and power of attorney documents.
How to Use FARMS?
Given its foundation in Excel, users should possess at least a basic familiarity with spreadsheet navigation. Training videos are available on YouTube to assist new users with becoming familiar with FARMS, explaining how to enter data and use the summary and analysis functions. A link to the training videos is provided below. Additionally, OSU Extension occasionally provides training sessions for potential users. It is recommended to review the training videos or attend a training session before using FARMS.
Who Should Use FARMS?
FARMS is suited for anyone involved in the farm transition planning process, from family members beginning their farm transition plan to professional advisors engaged in developing detailed transition strategies for clients.
Accessing FARMS
To begin using FARMS, interested users can download the file at the link provided below. We request users complete an initial, short survey prior to downloading FARMS, as user feedback is important to the ongoing improvement of the spreadsheet. FARMS is available at no cost due to the financial support of key partners including North Central Extension Risk Management Education and the National Agricultural Law Center.
Conclusion
FARMS offers a structured, organized approach to farm transition planning, allowing farm families and professionals to collect comprehensive, accurate information. For additional information and to begin utilizing FARMS, visit Ohiofarmoffice.osu.edu and discover how FARMS can positively impact your farm’s transition planning efforts.
Links for FARMS
Training Videos are available here: https://www.youtube.com/@osufarmoffice
FARMS can be downloaded here: https://farmoffice.osu.edu/farmsspreadsheet
Upcoming FARMS Online Training Courses
Click on registration link to register for the course.
April 7 @ 10:00 am: https://osu.zoom.us/meeting/register/oJmnwm-VQx6XjqvBh7J0aA
April 16 @ 10:00 am: https://osu.zoom.us/meeting/register/iY9cLoJeQwS0rUHkHr3DpA
April 23 @ 1:00 pm: https://osu.zoom.us/meeting/register/vT_-X56FQQqBT63fKUQW4g
May 2 @ 3:00 pm: https://osu.zoom.us/meeting/register/KmbdTjq2SryLkYNOaevp3Q
Example screenshots of FARMS
This worksheet collects family and contact information. This information is used throughout the spreadsheet for beneficiary designations, executor identification and beneficiary allocations.
This worksheet collects all real estate information including parcel identification, value, ownership and probate status. This information is used to avoid probate, and the values are included in the estate tax and beneficiary distribution analysis. Note the use of client and beneficiary names retrieved from contact information worksheet.
This worksheet collects information on up to 10 business entities. The type of entity, tax structure, assets held in the entity, ownership information and probate status is all included.
This is the summary and analysis page. All the information provided in the financial worksheets are pulled into this page and summarized. The user can assess net worth and analyze potential estate tax liability. Additionally, assets can be divided between spouses for additional estate tax analysis. Perhaps most importantly, the assets can be allocated among the beneficiaries to visualize the distribution plan. A running total for each beneficiary is provided.
Tags: FARMS, transition planning
Comments: 0
It's time for another episode of Farm Office Live, our monthly webinar covering agricultural law and farm management updates for Ohio agriculture. Join us this Friday, March 28 at 10 a.m. to hear from our Farm Office team of experts along with guests Eli Earich, attorney with the law firm of Barrett, Easterday, Cunningham & Eselgroth in Dublin, Ohio and Tyler Zimpfer, Law Fellow with the National Agricultural Law Center. The agenda this month covers these topics:
- Grain Contract Law and Legal Considerations - featuring Eli Earich, Barrett, Easterday, Cunningham & Eselgroth
- Legislative Update - Peggy Hall, OSU and featuring Tyler Zimpfer, National Agricultural Law Center Law Fellow
- Enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act - Peggy Hall, OSU
- Crop Margin Outlook, Ohio Farm Sales Data, and Tax Update - Barry Ward, OSU
- Emergency Commodity Assistance Program (ECAP) - David Marrison, OSU
- Payment Limitation Rules - Robert Moore, OSU
- Farm Asset and Resource Management Spreadsheet (FARMS) - Robert Moore, OSU
- Beginner’s Guide to Farmland Ownership - Robert Moore, OSU
- Upcoming Events and Deadline - David Marrison, OSU
Don't have time to join us this Friday? We record all of the Farm Office Live webinars and post them at https://farmoffice.osu.edu/farmofficelive. If you're not already a Farm Office Live viewer, register for the free webinar at https://farmoffice.osu.edu/farmofficelive.
Today is the day! March 21, 2025, serves as the deadline for most businesses to report their beneficial ownership information (“BOI”) under the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”). But not so fast! While the prior statement is technically accurate, the situation has been complicated by statements and assurances from the U.S. Department of Treasury and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”). Here’s why.
March 21 Deadline
Over the past few months, we have closely followed and analyzed the ongoing developments surrounding the CTA in our blog posts. This ever-evolving saga has included nationwide injunctions and stays—both imposed and lifted—as well as multiple extensions of the BOI reporting deadline. You can review our previous posts here:
- Corporate Transparency Act reporting deadline remains January 1, 2025
- Federal court puts Corporate Transparency Act ownership reporting on hold
- Federal Appeals Court Reinstates Corporate Transparency Act Reporting Requirements
- Corporate Transparency Act Reporting Requirements Suspended Once Again . . . For Now
- SCOTUS to Decide Fate of Nationwide Injunction Against Corporate Transparency Act
- SCOTUS Allows Corporate Transparency Act Reporting Requirements to Resume
- Corporate Transparency Act Whiplash: Reporting Requirements Still on Hold
- BOI is Back!
In short, after navigating multiple legal challenges, the original BOI reporting deadline for most businesses of January 1, 2025, was extended to March 21, 2025. However, despite this official deadline, statements and assurances from FinCEN and the U.S. Department of Treasury have added further complexity to the situation.
Promises made, promises kept?
On February 27, FinCEN announced that it would not impose fines, penalties, or any other enforcement actions against companies that fail to file or update their BOI reports by the March 21 deadline. FinCEN clarified that this “non-enforcement action” will remain in effect until a forthcoming final rule takes effect. As of this publication, FinCEN has yet to release the proposed final rule that is expected to provide further guidance and clarity on the CTA’s reporting requirements.
But the assurances didn’t stop there. On March 2, the U.S. Department of Treasury announced that the “non-enforcement action” would continue for all domestic reporting companies and beneficial owners even after FinCEN’s forthcoming rule is issued and takes effect. In essence, the Treasury has committed to not enforcing the CTA against domestic companies and owners required to file BOI reports under the Act. However, this relief will not extend to foreign reporting companies, which will be required to comply with the CTA’s reporting requirements. Additionally, the Treasury has pledged to propose a rule that would formally limit the CTA’s scope to foreign reporting companies only.
It’s important to recognize that, until these proposed rules are officially enacted, the promises made remain just that—promises. As of now, no formal rule or regulation prevents the enforcement of the CTA against domestic companies and owners. Until these assurances are solidified into law, businesses should consult with their legal counsel to determine the best course of action regarding CTA compliance.
Additionally, there has been considerable discussion suggesting that these promises and proposed rules effectively eliminate the CTA for domestic companies and owners. However, that is not entirely accurate. If implemented, these proposed rules would be administrative in nature and remain in effect only as long as the current administration permits. As with any administration change, a future administration could introduce new rules that reinstate all aspects of the CTA, including reporting requirements for domestic companies and owners.
For some "light" reading, feel free to check out our blog post on the Principles of Government, where we discuss federal agencies and the powers granted to them.
On the horizon.
Legal Challenges of CTA. The CTA continues to face several legal challenges nationwide questioning its constitutionality. Two of the most notable cases, which introduced the nationwide injunction and stay, are the Texas Top Cop Shop case and the Smith case, both currently before the federal district court in Texas. These cases challenge the constitutionality of the CTA, and the court's ruling could have significant implications for the future of the law. The situation is further complicated by a division among courts across the country regarding the CTA’s constitutionality. While some courts have upheld the CTA as constitutional, others have found it likely unconstitutional and issued more limited injunctions against its enforcement. In summary, the outcome remains uncertain. It appears that this issue is ultimately headed to the Supreme Court of the United States for final determination.
Legislation. There are several legislative proposals that could impact the CTA. One such proposal, the Protect Small Businesses from Excessive Paperwork Act of 2025, aims to extend the BOI filing deadline for most businesses to January 1, 2026. The bill has already passed the House of Representatives and is now in the Senate, where it has been referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Additionally, there are bills in both the House and Senate seeking to repeal the CTA entirely. H.R. 425 and S.100, both titled the Repealing Big Brother Overreach Act, aim to fully overturn the CTA, though they have not seen significant progress since their introduction.
Legal Challenges of Promises Made. To further complicate matters, the Treasury Department’s current stance on suspending enforcement of the CTA against domestic reporting companies and owners may face its own set of legal challenges. Given the significance of the CTA, it is likely that the "non-enforcement action" will undergo intense scrutiny, litigation, and could potentially lead to legislative action. Should this occur, it raises the possibility that the CTA could remain fully enforceable, with reporting requirements for domestic companies and owners intact. This ongoing uncertainty underscores the need for businesses to stay informed and proactive about potential changes and developments.
What Should Businesses Do Now?
With enforcement actions in limbo, businesses should:
- Stay informed. Due to the ongoing legal challenges, proposed legislation, and potential future legal disputes, businesses should stay up-to-date on the status of the CTA and its enforcement. The situation appears to be evolving almost daily.
- Counsel. Businesses should consult with their legal counsel to determine the best course of action regarding the CTA. Taking a risk-averse approach may provide peace of mind, while a wait-and-see strategy could lead to unforeseen consequences.
Conclusion
At this moment, it appears that no fines or penalties will be imposed on businesses that fail to meet the March 21 deadline for BOI reporting. However, given the unpredictable nature of BOI and the CTA, things can change quickly. The CTA has been a dramatic journey, filled with unexpected twists, cliffhangers, and surprising developments. However, the story is far from over. We will continue to keep you updated on the latest changes and progress of the CTA until we reach a final resolution.
Tags: corporate transparency act, BOI, BOI Reporting, CTA, Business, FinCEN, U.S. Department of Treasury
Comments: 0
Written by Tyler Zimpfer, Law Fellow, National Agricultural Law Center
The beginning of a new presidential administration brings heightened awareness to areas of government that Americans don’t always consider, such as federal agencies. Recently, U.S. Senators have been reviewing the President’s nominees in confirmation hearings for leadership roles in federal agencies. These confirmation hearings matter. Nominees – often called a “secretary” or “director” – will oversee federal agencies with billion-dollar budgets and a federal workforce of over three million employees. But why is our government structured this way? Are all federal agencies created the same? What powers do these agencies have? And how might a recent Supreme Court decision impact the future of federal agencies?
These questions are relevant to agriculture, because farmers constantly engage with federal agencies. For example, the USDA administers programs through the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) that provides crop insurance, conservation funding, and financial assistance. The EPA oversees pesticide use, air pollution, and water quality laws that impact chemical use. Food producers and processors comply with health and safety standards set by the Food and Drug Administration and the Food Safety and Inspection Service.
Understanding the laws that establish and guide federal agencies is important for agriculture and is the focus of our third topic in the Principles of Government series.
A Brief History of Federal Agencies
The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to establish federal official positions and agencies. The power derives from three sources: the legislative power in Article I §1, the Necessary and Proper Clause in Article I §8, and the Appointments Clause in Article II, § 2. Taken together, these constitutional provisions give Congress authority to create agencies to administer the laws Congress makes. Congress must pass an “organic statute” – a statute that creates the agency and gives it certain responsibilities and power. After the agency is formally created, the Constitution authorizes the President to select and direct the officers that will lead the agency, with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Agencies have therefore been around since the onset of our democracy. The first agency, created in 1789, was called the Department of Foreign Affairs, which estimated debts on any imports into the country. The agency later became what we now know as the State Department. Congress continued to create various agencies including the Department of Treasury, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Agriculture throughout the early to mid-1800s. For the first 150 years of the United States, these agencies had fewer responsibilities and were smaller in size and impact than most modern agencies. The federal government currently maintains a list of agencies, which now number in the hundreds.
Structure of a Federal Agency
Not all agencies are created equal by Congress. The “typical” agency (e.g., USDA, EPA, etc.) is led by a single Presidentially appointed, Senate confirmed official (e.g., Secretary of Agriculture, Administrator of the EPA), who oversees the agency’s programs and employees. These agency officials are removable at-will by the President. In slight contrast, an “independent” agency usually consists of a multi-member body with limits on the number of members from one political party versus another. The members of the independent agency can have reasonable restrictions on their removal from office. The more popular independent agencies are the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Commodity Future Trading Commission (CFTC), and the Federal Reserve.
The Power of Agency Regulations
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), passed in 1946, was enacted partially in response to the boom of administrative agencies created during the Great Depression. The purpose of the APA was to promote accountability and transparency of the federal agencies who were beginning to regulate the lives of millions of Americans. The APA established the process by which agencies develop and implement “regulations or rules.”
Regulations are especially important because they have the equal force and effect of a law Congress passes. Agencies cannot simply implement any policy they deem necessary. They must implement rules that carry out laws already passed by Congress and delegated to the agencies. Take the Clean Water Act (CWA) for example. The CWA provides the basic structure for preventing pollution into water sources around the United States. The CWA gave the EPA power to enforce and regulate the law. With the CWA as its legal authority, the EPA uses its technical expertise to write the regulations for the law, such as setting wastewater standards for industries and implementing permit programs for pollution discharges. The CWA is an “enabling statute” – a law that confers new or additional powers on an existing agency. Together with the “organic statute” that creates the agency by law, the EPA has broad authority to enforce the CWA as Congress has delegated.
In making regulations, agencies must follow what is called the “notice and comment” process established by the APA. The agency issues a notice of rulemaking and then provides an opportunity for interested persons to comment before a final rule is made. The notice and comment period can be quick for smaller, less controversial regulations, but can last for more than a year on more comprehensive rules. On average, agencies issue 18 regulations for every one law Congress passes.
Resolving Disputes and Enforcing Regulations
Agencies also have the unique power to “adjudicate” various claims related to their regulations and programs. A government official follows the mandates of the APA and the agency’s own rules to resolve a dispute between a private party and the government or between two private parties arising out of a government program. Just as regulations mirror legislative functions, adjudications and orders function similar to a court system. Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) preside over hearings and agency disputes. However, they are not part of the judicial branch but are considered executive officers and appointed by the head of an agency. After all internal processes of review are exhausted, an ALJ’s final determinations may be appealed to a federal court for review.
Deference to Agency Expertise: Recent Developments
This past June, the Supreme Court of the United States decided a pivotal administrative law case in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The Court expressly overruled the Chevron doctrine, referring to a case that gave significant deference to federal agencies in interpreting ambiguous statutes they were charged with enforcing and implementing. Under the Chevron doctrine, a court would defer to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous law as long as the interpretation was reasonable and even if the court would have interpreted the law differently.
In Loper Bright, the High Court reversed this doctrine and determined that a court could question an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous law, placing more decision-making power for interpreting ambiguous statutes largely in the hands of the judicial branch.
Agriculture is an industry that interacts constantly with statutes that are interpreted and enforced by federal agencies. Pesticide regulations, wetland determinations, PFAS limits, and crop insurance are all areas soaked with uncertainty after Loper Bright. While the regulations do not automatically change, interested parties may be more willing to challenge regulations in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision. The potential difference between a judge and agency interpretation of an ambiguous law may create new excitement for agricultural groups (and many other industries for that matter) for an opportunity that a court might overrule what they see as undesirable agency rules. Or will Congress be more incentivized to write unambiguous laws that give agencies clear direction in every situation because of Loper Bright? We will wait and see. Both practical and substantive impacts of the Loper Bright decision are still developing, but it could reduce agency authority to some extent.
To learn more about federal agencies
If you are interested, here are additional educational resources on the topics discussed in this post:
Tags: principles of government, agencies, rulemaking, regulations, federal, administrative law
Comments: 0
Nearly 39% of the 880 million acres of farmland in the United States is leased, and in Ohio, this figure approaches 50%. Many individuals who inherit or purchase farmland have limited experience in agricultural management, creating uncertainty regarding effective land stewardship. To assist these novice farmland owners, Ohio State University's Agricultural and Resource Law Program is pleased to announce the release of our latest publication, "The Beginner’s Guide to Farmland Ownership", authored by Robert Moore, Attorney and Research Specialist at OSU. This practical, user-friendly resource is now available for download at farmoffice.osu.edu.
Owning farmland is not only a rewarding opportunity but also a significant responsibility, particularly for new landowners with limited farming experience. Whether you've inherited farmland or recently purchased it, navigating complex decisions such as leasing, selling, or managing alternative land uses can be challenging. This 48-page, comprehensive guide was developed to help new landowners understand and manage their farmland effectively.
"The Beginner’s Guide to Farmland Ownership" addresses key areas that every new landowner needs to understand. Topics include understanding farmland valuation, exploring leasing arrangements (cash rent, share rent, and flex leases), considerations when selling farmland, managing tax implications, and assessing alternative land uses such as renewable energy or conservation easements. Additionally, the guide explores strategies for protecting farmland through legal instruments and minimizing risk through insurance and business entities.
Visit farmoffice.osu.edu to access this publication.
Part 3 in our series on Carbon Capture and Storage
As expected, proposed legislation to allow for carbon capture and storage wells (CCS) was introduced this week in the Ohio General Assembly. The legislation opens the door for CCS underground injection wells to store captured carbon dioxide in “pore space” or cavities far beneath the land’s surface. As we explained in Part 1 and Part 2 of our CCS series, CCS technology removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and can also trigger final production in an oil or gas field. If passed, the new law would affect agricultural landowners, who could be asked to lease their “pore space” for CCS projects.
The identical CCS bills introduced in the Ohio House of Representatives and Senate are H.B. 170, sponsored by Rep. Monica Robb Blasdel (R-Columbiana) and Rep. Bob Peterson (R-Sabina) and S.B. 136, sponsored by Sen. Tim Schaffer (R-Lancaster) and Sen. Brian Chavez (R-Marietta). The proposal varies in several places from a bill introduced late last year, the result of “fine tuning” by interested parties over the winter, according to Rep. Blasdel.
The proposed legislation includes clarification of the pore space property interest, a regulatory framework and fees for injection wells, consolidation or “pooling” provisions, well closure procedures, and liability provisions for carbon dioxide migration.
Clarification of “pore space” as a real property interest
Currently, Ohio does not have statutory laws that recognize pore space as a real property interest. The proposal would change that by recognizing that the owner of surface lands and water also owns “all pore space in all strata below the surface lands and waters.” The definition of “pore space” is “subsurface cavities and voids, whether natural or artificially created, that are suitable for use as a sequestration space for carbon dioxide.”
The proposal also addresses conveyancing of pore space, stating that a conveyance of surface ownership also conveys the pore space interest unless the pore space is expressly reserved or severed from the surface interest. This means a landowner could sever pore space rights and convey those separate from the surface, as Ohio law currently allows with minerals. A severed pore space interest would have priority over the surface interest. The proposal also addresses the relationship with mineral interests, stating that severed mineral or oil and gas interests would be dominant over pore space rights.
Regulatory framework for CCS injection wells
The proposed legislation would place state regulatory authority over CCS storage facilities in Ohio’s Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management in the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). Note that the federal Safe Drinking Water Act also requires CCS injection wells to have a Class VI injection well permit from the U.S. EPA, although with the passage of the proposed bills, Ohio hopes to receive approval from the EPA to administer the state’s Class VI permit program.
The bills directs ODNR to adopt rules for CCS. At a minimum, the rules must include:
(1) Requirements for the operation and monitoring of a carbon dioxide well;
(2) Safety concerning the drilling and operation of a carbon dioxide well;
(3) Spacing, setback, and other provisions to prevent storage facilities and storage operators from impacting the ability of owners of oil and gas interests to develop those interests;
(4) Protection of the public and private water supply, including the amount of water used and the source or sources of the water;
(5) Fencing and screening of surface facilities of a carbon dioxide well;
(6) Containment and disposal of drilling and other wastes related to a carbon sequestration project;
(7) Construction of access roads for purposes of the drilling and operation of a carbon dioxide well;
(8) Noise mitigation for purposes of the drilling of a carbon dioxide well and the operation of such a well, excluding safety and maintenance operations;
(9) Liability insurance to pay damages for injury to persons or property caused by the construction or operation of the storage facility;
(10) Liability insurance coverage of at least fifteen million dollars to cover bodily injury and property damage caused by the construction, drilling, or operation of wells, including environmental coverage.
(11) A surety bond sufficient to cover corrective actions, plugging, post-injection site care prior to receipt of a certificate of project completion, and emergency or remedial response.
The proposed law also states that ODNR may require a CCS storage well operator to deploy a seismicity monitoring system to determine seismic activity in the carbon storage area and requires a well operator to show that owners of oil and gas will not be adversely affected by the well. Both the well operator and the well owner would pay fees to ODNR for the amount of carbon dioxide stored in the well.
Consolidation or “pooling” of pore space
If a well operator can’t obtain the consent of all pore space owners within a proposed storage area, the legislation would allow the operator to apply for “consolidation” if the operator has consent from at least 75% of the pore space owners. The remaining percentage of pore space owners could be “forced” into the project if ODNR determines that the consolidation is “reasonably necessary to facilitate the underground storage of carbon dioxide.” Provisions would also address how to compensate the pore space owners.
Well closure
After carbon injections into a storage facility have ended and a period of 50 years passes, a storage operator may apply for a certificate of closure. If the operator can establish full regulatory compliance and that there is no potential of migration or threat to public health or the environment, the state may issue a certificate of project completion that releases the operator from regulatory requirements and transfers the primary responsibility and liability for the stored carbon dioxide to the state. An operator could remain liable, however, under several circumstances, such as criminal acts, providing deficient or erroneous information, or violating duties.
Liability
The proposal clearly protects owners of pore space and owners of surface or subsurface property interests from liability relating to the injection of carbon dioxide into a storage facility. It also limits any claims for damages against a storage operator to instances where the claimant can prove that the carbon dioxide injection or migration obstructed the free use of property, or caused direct physical injury to an individual, animal, or real or personal property. The bill prohibits awarding of punitive damages if the storage operator acted in compliance with the required permit, and limits damages for personal or real property to the “diminution” or loss of value of the property.
How will the legislation affect agricultural landowners?
Our next article in the Carbon Capture and Storage series will focus on issues agricultural landowners need to consider if the CCS legislation passes. Watch for Part 4 on CCS soon, along with continued updates on the progress of Ohio's CCS legislative proposals.
Tags: carbon capture and storage, CCS, carbon dioxide, pore space
Comments: 0
As we all know, family farms often hold deep sentimental value. They are passed from generation to generation, with the hope that they will stay in the family. But without careful estate planning, these properties can become the subject of costly legal disputes—and even forced sales. A recent case from the Ohio Court of Appeals, Stephan v. Wacaster, is a textbook example of how inadequate planning can lead to the partition and sale of family land.
The Case: A Family Farm Divided
In Stephan v. Wacaster, the appeals court affirmed a decision forcing the partition[1] of a 95-acre farm in Miami County, Ohio. Here's what happened:
Margaret Stephan, the original owner of the farm, left a will giving life estates to her two children, Connie Wacaster and DeWayne Stephan. Upon each of their deaths, the will directed that their respective shares would pass to their children. For DeWayne's half, that meant his sons, Rick and Chris Stephan. For Connie’s half, her children, Tami Bodie and Todd Wacaster, would inherit.
Both Margaret and DeWayne passed away. Rick and Chris, now owning DeWayne’s one-half of the farm, filed a lawsuit seeking to partition the farm and divide the proceeds. Connie, still living and holding her life estate in half the property, objected. She argued that because she was still alive and held a life estate over the whole farm, the property couldn’t be partitioned until her death.
However, the court reached a different conclusion. It determined that Margaret's will created a tenancy in common between Connie and DeWayne, rather than a joint survivorship. As a result, when DeWayne passed away, his sons, Rick and Chris, immediately inherited his half of the farm. This ownership gave them the legal right to seek partition of the entire property—even though Connie was still living there and held a life estate in her half.
If Rick and Chris move forward with partition, Connie will face a difficult choice: either purchase their half of the farm or allow the entire property to be sold—likely at public auction. If the property is sold, Connie may ultimately be forced to leave the farm altogether, losing not only her home but also the family legacy tied to the land.
Why This Happened: Poor Estate Planning
At the heart of this family dispute is a will that lacked clarity and failed to anticipate future complications. Margaret's will did not create a survivorship interest for Connie and DeWayne, nor did it include restrictions to prevent partition actions. As a result, once DeWayne passed away, his children held a vested, possessory interest in half of the farm, and Ohio law granted them the right to partition the property. It is probably safe to assume that Margaret would not have wanted the farm sold while Connie was still alive and lived on the property.
How Better Estate Planning Could Have Helped
This case is a cautionary tale for anyone who wants to keep property—especially family farmland—within the family. Here are a few ways Margaret's estate plan could have avoided this outcome:
- Survivorship Provisions: Margaret’s will could have created a joint survivorship life estate so that Connie would receive full ownership upon DeWayne's death. This would have delayed the transfer of DeWayne’s share to his children until after Connie's passing.
- Use of a Trust: Rather than distributing life estates and remainders through a will, Margaret could have placed the farm into a trust, which would allow for more control over how the property was managed, used, and distributed over multiple generations.
- LLC: Margaret could have placed the farm into an LLC and her heirs could have inherited the LLC. Provisions in the LLC agreement could prevent partition and only allow the farm to be sold if at least a majority of family members consented.
The Takeaway
Estate planning for real estate—especially family farms—requires careful thought and precise legal drafting. Without it, disputes like the one in Stephan v. Wacaster become commonplace. Keeping land in the family for future generations can be accomplished by precise drafting in a will, the use of a trust, or setting up a land LLC.
This case is a reminder that even with the best intentions, a poorly drafted estate plan can drive wedges between family members and lead to the loss of important property. Anyone who wants to preserve their family land should work with an experienced estate planning attorney to create a plan that protects the property.
[1] Ohio law allows any co-tenant (co-owner) of real estate to file for partition. This process causes the court to sell the property and divide the proceeds among the owners. The purpose of this law is to prevent a co-tenant from being forced to own real estate when they do not agree with the other co-tenants on ownership and management issues.
Written by Tyler Zimpfer, Law Fellow with OSU Ag & Resource Law and the National Agricultural Law Center
Welcome back to our blog series on “Principles of Government,” where we explain key legal doctrines shaping the current public discourse. In this blog post, we’ll cover an action that’s been taken by every U.S. President since our country’s founding – the Executive Order (EO). Oftentimes, EOs are the primary tool Presidents use to “hit the ground running” with their agenda and campaign promises. A President is likely to issue hundreds of EOs over the course of a term in office.
What is an EO and how does it arise?
An EO is a written document signed by the President, typically directed to government officials in the executive branch. A President uses an EO to manage government operations and carry out laws consistent with the President’s policies and wishes. The President can also modify or revoke EOs issued by previous administrations. An EO has the force and effect of law if it is founded on authority given to the President by the Constitution or by statute.
Most of us see the President sign an EO in the Oval Office or hear about it in the media, but the process to write and approve the actual text of the EO is more complex than the signature event indicates. While there are few enforceable EO guidelines, there is a process a President follows to create an EO. Ironically, the process for Eos was established in an EO signed by President John F. Kennedy.
The EO procedure begins with the President who, with assistance of staff, drafts an EO. The President sends the EO to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) with the explanation of the authority, purpose, and potential effect of the proposed actions in the EO. The OMB can refine the EO and coordinate comments from federal agencies. Once the OMB approves it, the EO goes to the Attorney General who reviews whether the order complies with the Constitution and any related laws. The Attorney General then sends an EO to the Office of the Federal Register. Like a high school English teacher, the Federal Register reviews for any grammar or typing errors. The EO then goes back to the President to be formally signed. Despite this choreography, the President can still sign an EO if anyone in the review process doesn’t approve of the EO. Just like regulations issued by an agency, EOs are numbered and published in the Federal Register, the federal government’s official publication of actions taken each day.
While EOs receive the most media attention, Presidents can also act in other ways to manage the operations of the executive branch, such as through executive memoranda and proclamations. Executive memoranda are similar to EOs but have less stringent requirements. The President is not required to explain legal authority or budgetary impacts of a memorandum. Proclamations are less formal and communicate information on holidays, special observances, trade, and policy, but do not have the force and effect of law.
Does the EO power derive from the U.S. Constitution?
The Constitution does not directly state that the President has the power to issue EOs. The President issues EOs through the inherent authority of the executive power, authority found in Article II of the Constitution. More specifically, Section I of Article II, which states “[t]he Executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America,” is viewed as giving the President the authority to issue EOs and take other executive actions. The Constitution also states in Article II that the President shall “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” which some claim is both authority for and a limitation on a President’s EO powers.
Is there a limit to what a President can do with an EO?
In simple terms – yes, there are limits. A President may assert that an EO holds the “force and effect of law” or the same power as a law passed by Congress. However, Presidents must issue an EO pursuant to legal authority found either in the Constitution or through a delegation of power from Congress. Because Article II’s grant of executive power is broad and many laws are ambiguously written, a President may try to stretch the scope of an EO to the outer limits of the President’s authority. When there is a question of whether a President has exceeded its executive authority in an EO, Congress may choose to support or oppose the actions through its legislative power.
Federal courts have the ability to review the legality of an EO, the same as reviewing a law passed by Congress. Courts examine both the scope of the EO and the Constitutional provision or statute instilling authority for the order. Courts will look at the actual text of the EO, agency interpretations, and any policy and public statements made in relation to the EO. An EO may not be legally enforceable if a court determines that the President did not have the authority to issue the order.
Find the Federal Register compilation of EOs at https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders and learn more about Executive Orders through these resources: Executive Orders: A Beginner’s Guide, Executive Orders: An Introduction, and Executive Orders and Presidential Transitions.
Tags: principles of government, executive orders, president, Constitution
Comments: 0
If you and your family are grappling with the critical issue of how to transition the farm operation and farm assets to the next generation, OSU Extension is here to help. Producers are encouraged to attend one of three regional “Planning for the Future of Your Farm” workshops during March. These workshops will challenge farm families to actively plan for the future of the farm business. Learn how to have crucial conversations about the future of your farm and gain a better understanding of the strategies and tools that can help you transfer your farm’s ownership, management, and assets to the next generation. We encourage parents, children, and grandchildren to attend together to develop a plan for the future of the family and farm.
These workshops will be held in the following locations:
Wayne County – March 11 & 13, 2025
Location: Fisher Auditorium, 1680 Madison Avenue, Wooster, Ohio 44691
Registration fee: $85 per couple and includes course materials, refreshments and dinner for two persons. Additional members can attend at $40/person.
Contact John Yost at the Wayne County Extension office at 330-264-8722 for more information.
Click here for registration flyer
Licking County – March 13 & 18, 2025
Location: Hartford Fairgrounds, Babcock Bldg, 14028 Fairgrounds Road, Croton, Ohio 43013
Registration fee: $25 per couple and includes course materials and refreshments for two persons. Additional members can attend at $15/person.
Contact the Licking County Extension office at 740-670-5313 for more information.
Click here for registration flyer
Morgan County – March 27 & April 3, 2025
Location: Riecker Building, 155 E Main Street, McConnelsville, Ohio 43756
Registration fee: $10 per couple and includes course materials, light meal and refreshments for two persons. Additional members can attend at $5/person.
Contact Jordan Penrose, Morgan County Extension at 740-962-4854 for more information
Click here for registration flyer
Program Details
Teaching faculty for the workshop are David Marrison, OSU Extension Farm Management Field Specialist, and Robert Moore, Attorney with the OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program. Topics covered in the workshop include:
- Developing goals for estate and transition planning
- Planning for the transition of control
- Planning for the unexpected
- Communication and conflict management during farm transfer
- Federal estate tax challenges
- Tools for transferring assets
- Tools for avoiding probate
- The role of wills and trusts
- Using LLCs
- Strategies for on-farm and off-farm heirs
- Strategies for protecting the farmland
- Developing your team
- Getting your affairs in order
- Selecting an attorney
Registration
Pre-registration is required. Click on the links below for the registration flyer for each workshop.
March 11 & 13, 2025- Wayne County (6:00 to 9:00 p.m.)
March 13 & 18, 2025 – Licking County (6:00 to 9:00 p.m.)
March 27 & April 3, 2025- Morgan County (6:00 to 8:30 p.m.)
Thank you!
OSU Extension thanks Ohio Corn and Wheat for its generous sponsorship of these programs.
More Information
More information is at: https://go.osu.edu/farmsuccession
For additional questions about these workshops, please contact David Marrison at marrison.2@osu.edu or 740-722-6073
Yes, you read that right—the Beneficial Ownership Information (“BOI”) reporting requirements under the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) are once again in effect. On February 17, 2025, a federal judge lifted the stay he had issued on January 7 in Smith v. U.S. Department of Treasury, which had temporarily halted the Government from enforcing BOI reporting requirements nationwide. This recent ruling eliminates all nationwide barriers that had been hindering the enforcement of the CTA. As a result, millions of businesses must now comply with BOI reporting requirements or face the risk of civil and/or criminal penalties.
Updated Deadlines
On February 18, 2025, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) issued a notice outlining the following key updates:
- Most reporting companies, unless subject to a later deadline (such as disaster relief extensions), now have until March 21, 2025, to submit their initial, updated, or corrected BOI report to FinCEN.
- If FinCEN determines that additional time is needed for compliance, it will issue another notice before the March 21, 2025, deadline with any further changes.
- The named plaintiffs in National Small Business United v. Yellen are still not required to report their BOI to FinCEN at this time.
A Quick Recap: What is the Corporate Transparency Act?
Enacted in 2021, the CTA is a federal law designed to combat financial crimes like money laundering, tax evasion, and fraud by enhancing business ownership transparency. It mandates that certain domestic and foreign entities disclose their beneficial owners—individuals who ultimately own or control the company—to FinCEN.
Who Must File Beneficial Ownership Information?
Entities designated as “reporting companies” must submit their BOI to FinCEN by March 21. This includes corporations, limited liability companies (“LLCs”), and similar entities registered with their state’s Secretary of State or an equivalent authority to conduct business. However, certain entities are exempt from BOI reporting requirements, including:
- Publicly traded companies which are already subject to SEC reporting requirements.
- Large operating companies that meet specific employee and revenue thresholds.
- Certain regulated entities, such as banks and credit unions.
What Information Must be Filed
When completing the BOI Report, two sets of information must be submitted to FinCEN. First, the "reporting company" must provide details about itself. Then, the company must submit information about its beneficial owners.
Reporting companies will need to provide the following information:
- The reporting company’s legal name;
- Tax identification number;
- Jurisdiction of formation; and
- Current U.S. address.
For their beneficial owners, reporting companies will need the following information:
- Full legal name;
- Residential address;
- A form of identification, which must be either a state issued driver’s license, a state/local/tribe-issued ID, a U.S. passport, or a foreign passport; and
- An image of the identification used in number 3 above.
See our law bulletin for more details on reporting requirements.
Where Can I File a BOI Report?
Businesses can complete all BOI reporting by visiting the FinCEN website. There is no cost to file a BOI report. However, if a business engages a tax professional, attorney, or other third party to file a BOI report on its behalf, the business will be responsible for covering any professional fees associated with the preparation and submission of the report.
Penalties.
Noncompliance with the CTA and its BOI reporting requirements can result in substantial civil and/or criminal penalties, including:
- A daily fine of $591 (adjusted for inflation) for each day the violation persists.
- A criminal fine of up to $10,000 and/or up to 2 years of imprisonment.
Looking Ahead: Ongoing Legal Challenges.
While current court rulings permit the CTA to proceed with its BOI reporting requirements, the legal battles are far from over. Several cases challenging the constitutionality of the CTA are still ongoing. Additionally, proposed legislation in both the House and Senate aims to repeal the CTA. H.R.425 and S.100, both titled the Repealing Big Brother Overreach Act, seek to fully overturn the CTA but have not yet made it through committee.
There has also been some movement on some recently proposed legislation that aims to extend the reporting deadlines under the CTA. The Protect Small Businesses from Excessive Paperwork Act of 2025 seeks to push the BOI filing deadline for most businesses to January 1, 2026. The bill has already passed the House of Representatives and has been introduced in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
What Businesses Should Do Now.
With BOI reporting obligations reinstated, business should take immediate steps to comply:
- Determine if You Must Report. You can review our law bulletin or FinCEN’s website and resources to confirm whether your company qualifies as a “reporting company.”
- Identify Beneficial Owners. Gather the necessary information on individuals who own at least 25% of the company or exert substantial control over the company.
- Timely File Reports to Avoid Penalties. Submit BOI reports electronically via FinCEN’s secure filing system.
- Monitor Ongoing Legal Developments. Given ongoing legal challenges, businesses should stay informed about potential changes to the CTA’s enforcement.
Final Thoughts
The Corporate Transparency Act is here to stay—at least for now. The federal government's ongoing efforts to enforce the CTA and its BOI reporting requirements highlight its commitment to corporate transparency and anti-money laundering initiatives. Companies should ensure they comply with their obligations to avoid costly penalties while staying alert to potential future legal changes.
Tags: corporate transparency act, BOI, CTA, beneficial ownership information
Comments: 0