Recent Blog Posts
The well-known advantages of business entities include liability protection, tax management, and shared management responsibilities. A lesser-known advantage is the relative ease of transferring ownership. When assets such as land, machinery, or livestock are held in an entity like an LLC, ownership interests in the entity can often be transferred far more efficiently than transferring each asset individually. Rather than retitling deeds, updating equipment titles, or reassigning livestock ownership, a transfer of membership interests can effectively shift ownership of all underlying assets in a single step.
Funding the LLC
The first step is to form the LLC and transfer the assets into it. Land is conveyed by deed, titled vehicles by title transfer, and untitled assets such as machinery and livestock by written assignment. This step is critical. Until the LLC is established and owns the assets, there is no entity ownership interest to transfer.
Transferring Ownership
Once the LLC is established and the assets are transferred to it, ownership interests can be transferred with relatively simple documentation. The transfer document should identify the current owner, the recipient, the percentage or units being transferred, the purchase price or value of the gift, and the effective date of the transfer. Both parties should sign and date the document.
Documenting Value
While the transfer of ownership is relatively simple, it is important to document the value of the ownership being transferred. If the transfer is a sale, the value will determine the amount of taxes that may be owed. If the transfer is a gift, the value will determine if the transfer impacts the federal estate tax exemption.
The value of a gifted ownership interest is its fair market value. That value should be supported by an appraisal or reliable market data. If the gift is undervalued, the IRS can adjust it to fair market value, potentially creating adverse tax consequences. While it may be tempting to rely on county auditor values or informal estimates for land, the better practice is to obtain a qualified appraisal. Although an appraisal adds expense, it is often a worthwhile investment to reduce the risk of problems in an IRS audit.
Example
Consider the following example to illustrate gifting through a business entity.
Farmer owns a farm and would like to gift it to Daughter. To minimize potential estate tax concerns, Farmer plans to make annual gifts over ten years, keeping each gift within the annual exclusion amount. Without using a business entity, Farmer would need to execute and record a new deed each year to transfer the annual interest in the property.
If the farm is first transferred to an LLC, however, each annual gift can be completed by transferring membership interests in the LLC through a simple written assignment. This approach avoids repeated deed preparation and recording. In addition, transfers of LLC interests are private transactions, while deeds are recorded and become public record.
As this example illustrates, using a business entity can make ownership transfers relatively simple. For farm and business owners considering a sale or gift of ownership, it may be worthwhile to explore whether establishing an entity would facilitate the transition. Because ownership transfers can carry significant tax and legal implications, legal and tax advisors should be involved in the planning process.
Note: for a thorough discussion on the tax implications of gifting, see the Gifting Assets Prior to Death bulletin available at farmoffice.osu.edu.
Although farm transition planning often focuses on passing assets smoothly from one generation to the next, in some cases, it may be preferable to skip a generation and distribute assets to the following generation. A Generation Skipping Trust (GST) is an estate planning tool that allows a farm owner to do so. A GST is a concept applied in a trust rather than a specific type of legal instrument or document, and it can be used to designate that certain assets will transfer to the grandchildren's generation, while providing financial benefits from the trust to the children's generation during the children's lifetimes.
Our new bulletin is part of the Planning for the Future of Your Farm series and is entitled Using Generation Skipping Trusts to Transfer Farm Assets. This bulletin explains how a GST works, examines what types of farm assets might be best for a GST, how using GST as a tool might affect your federal estate tax exemption, and how different GST provisions can be used to accomodate the needs of multiple generations of a farm family.
Please check out our new bulletin now available on the Farm Office website, or by clicking here.
Over the past several years, numerous lawsuits have been filed against the Monsanto Company regarding the safety of its herbicide Roundup and its main ingredient glyphosate. On January 16, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States granted the Monsanto Company’s petition to review one of these cases from the Missouri Court of Appeals, Durnell v. Monsanto Company.
Background of the case
In 2019, John Durnell of St. Louis sued Monsanto in Missouri state court, arguing that exposure to glyphosate contained in Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Mr. Durnell argued that Monsanto should be found strictly liable for defective design of its product and for failure to warn users of the danger of using Roundup, as well as negligence.
At trial, the jury sided with Monsanto on the defective design and negligence claims, meaning that the company was not found liable for these claims. On the remaining claim, the 12-person jury unanimously found Monsanto to be strictly liable for its failure to warn of the risks of using glyphosate, granting Mr. Durnell $1.25 million in compensatory damages.
Eventually, Monsanto appealed the case to the Missouri Court of Appeals, claiming that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts failure to warn claims under state law. Federal preemption of state law can happen either expressly or impliedly. Express preemption happens when a federal statute contains language that specifically says that other laws or requirements cannot be imposed. Implied preemption happens when there might not be explicit language in a statute calling out the preemption, but Congress’s intent to supersede state law is implicit due to the nature of the statute. Here, the appeals court did not find Monsanto’s preemption argument persuasive; instead finding that the language in FIFRA did not expressly preempt Mr. Durnell’s failure to warn claim, and that there was no implied irreconcilable conflict between the state and federal law. You can read the Missouri Court of Appeals opinion in its entirety here.
Since the Missouri Supreme Court declined to hear the case, Monsanto filed a petition with the Supreme Court of the United States to review the Missouri Court of Appeals’ decision on April 4, 2025. On January 16, 2026, the Supreme Court granted Monsanto’s petition, agreeing to review the case. The Court has limited its review of the case to one question: “whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning.”
What are each side’s arguments for the Supreme Court?
In the lead up to a Supreme Court determination to hear a case, the legal teams for both parties file documents explaining why or why not the case should be heard. The party asking the Court to hear the case (in this case, Monsanto) files a petition for writ of certiorari, laying out their reasons for asking for review. Then the respondent (Durnell), has a chance to file a brief with the Court detailing their arguments as to why the lower court’s decision should stand. These documents can give us some insight into how each party may form its arguments if the case is heard before the Supreme Court.
Between the two parties in this case, there are hundreds of pages laying out their lines of reasoning for hearing or not hearing the case. In its most basic form, Monsanto’s argument is that language in FIFRA expressly preempts state requirements for the labeling and packaging of herbicides like Roundup. The language they point to is in Chapter 7 of the U.S. Code, Section 136v(b) and reads: “state(s) shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under this subchapter.” You can see the statute here. FIFRA requires pesticides to be registered with the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before they can be sold or distributed in the country. Monsanto asserts that because EPA continues to accept Roundup’s product registration under FIFRA without requiring the company to include any warning or caution statement about the possible health risks of glyphosate on its labeling, any state law claim that would require such a warning should be overridden. You can read Monsanto’s petition for writ of certiorari here.
For their part, Mr. Durnell’s legal team points to a case previously decided by the Supreme Court in 2005, Bates v. Dow AgroSciences LLC (you can read that case here), in which the majority determined that state common-law claims like failure-to-warn are not automatically preempted by the language of FIFRA Section 136v(b). In Bates, the Court found that while FIFRA does preclude states from imposing different or additional labeling requirements for pesticides, it does not preclude states from imposing different or additional remedies. In other words, since “FIFRA does not provide a federal remedy to farmers and others who are injured as a result of a…violation of FIFRA’s labeling requirements, nothing in [FIFRA] precludes the states from providing such a remedy.” Furthermore, Mr. Durnell’s lawyers argue that EPA’s continued acceptance of Roundup’s product registration does not necessarily prevent the requirement of a cancer or health warning on the label, it just means that that Monsanto has not provided any evidence of glyphosate’s potential health effects or asked EPA to consider including such a warning. You can read Durnell’s response here.
What’s next?
While it can be fun to predict the outcome of Supreme Court cases, between the language of FIFRA and case law, I can’t begin to guess where the Court will end up in this case. What is certain is that the Court will examine “whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning.” Oral arguments for each side will happen sometime between October 2026 and April 2027, and the Court may release an opinion on the case in May or June of 2027. Additionally, the Court’s final decision will likely have implications for similar lawsuits regarding Roundup and glyphosate throughout the country. We will do our best to keep you updated on this complicated case as it works through the system. In the meantime, additional court documents and filings on the case can be found here.
Tags: pesticides, herbicides, roundup, Monsanto, glyphosate, EPA, FIFRA, Supreme Court, Supreme Court of the United States, U.S. Supreme Court
Comments: 0
By David Marrison - Field Specialist, Farm Management
Each winter, OSU Extension holds a “Planning for the Future of Your Farm” Zoom webinar series to help families with farm transition planning. We invite you and your farm family to attend this series from the comfort of your home on March 2, 9, 16 and 23, 2026 from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. This workshop is designed to help farm families learn strategies and tools to successfully create a transition and estate plan that helps you transfer your farm’s ownership, management, and assets to the next generation. Learn how to have the crucial conversations about the future of your farm.
Topics discussed during this series include:
- Developing Goals for Estate and Succession
- Planning for the Transition of Management
- Planning for the Unexpected
- Communication and Conflict Management during Farm Transfer
- Legal Tools & Strategies
- Farm Asset and Resource Management Spreadsheet (FARMS)
- Developing Your Team
- Getting Your Affairs in Order
- Selecting an Attorney
Instructors:
The instructors for this series are Robert Moore and David Marrison members of OSU Extension’s Farm Office Team. Robert Moore is an attorney with the OSU Extension Agricultural and Resource Law Program. Prior to joining OSU, Robert was in private practice for 18 years where he provided legal counsel to farmers and landowners. David Marrison is a OSU Extension Field Specialist, Farm Management. David has worked for OSU Extension for 28 years and is nationally known for his teaching in farm succession.
Invite Your Family to Attend with You:
Because of its virtual nature, you can invite your parents, children, and/or grandchildren (regardless of where they live in Ohio or across the United States) to join you as you develop a plan for the future of your family farm.
Registration:
Pre-registration is required. All course materials will be available electronically and recordings of the presentations will be accessible for four months upon conclusion of each session. Click here to register for this program. The registration fee is $99 per farm family is due by February 23, 2026.
More Information:
To obtain more information about this series, please access the Farm Office website at: https://farmoffice.osu.edu/ or contact David Marrison at the 740-722-6073 or by email at marrison.2@osu.edu.
A collaboration of several agricultural organizations have established the Ohio Farm Transition Network, a new endeavor to promote farm transition planning in Ohio. The following is the press release announcing its launch:
Ohio Farm Transition Network Launches to Strengthen Farm Succession Planning Across Ohio
COLUMBUS, Ohio — A new statewide initiative, the Ohio Farm Transition Network (OFTN), has officially launched operations to address one of the most pressing challenges facing Ohio agriculture: helping farm families successfully plan for the transition of their farms to the next generation.
Agricultural leaders from across Ohio have come together around a shared commitment to help farm families plan for the future by working from the same playbook. This collaboration aligns organizations, service providers, and educators around common language, expectations, and approaches to farm transition planning, reducing confusion for farmers and strengthening outcomes. “Farm families are best served when the industry is aligned and working together,” said Tim Hicks with Ohio Farm Bureau. “This collaborative effort reflects a shared responsibility to provide clear, consistent guidance that helps farmers make informed decisions and move confidently into the next generation.”
The Ohio Farm Transition Network will:
- Train and support attorneys, accountants, lenders, financial advisors, insurance professionals, Extension educators, and other agricultural service providers involved in farm transition planning
- Standardize terminology and best practices to improve the quality and reliability of transition planning services
- Serve as a statewide clearinghouse of educational resources and qualified service providers
- Increase awareness of the importance of proactive farm transition planning
- Measure progress and impact through data collection and reporting on completed transition plans
“OFTN exists to help farm families navigate the complex financial, legal, and personal decisions involved in passing a farm from one generation to the next,” said David Marrison, OSU Farm Management Specialist and Interim Director of the Farm Financial Management and Policy Institute. “By strengthening the professionals who support farm families and coordinating efforts across the agricultural community, OFTN will help preserve Ohio farms for future generations.”
In its first year, OFTN will offer professional training workshops, develop a comprehensive website, grow a statewide membership of trained service providers, and support the completion of farm transition plans across Ohio.
The Ohio Farm Transition Network was established through the collaboration of the following founding members:
- AgCredit
- Farm Credit Mid-America
- Nationwide
- Ohio Corn and Wheat
- Ohio Department of Agriculture
- Ohio Farm Bureau
- Ohio Soybean Council
- Ohio State University Extension
- USDA/Farm Service Agency
Funding for OFTN is generously provided by AgCredit, Farm Credit Mid-America, Nationwide, Ohio Corn and Wheat, and Ohio Soybean Council.
Together, all these organizations share a commitment to collaboration, education, and long-term sustainability for Ohio agriculture.
For more information about the Ohio Farm Transition Network, upcoming programs, or membership opportunities, contact David Marrison (marrison.2@osu.edu) or Robert Moore (moore.301@osu.edu).
Farmers already face an onslaught of challenges: fluctuating markets, unpredictable weather, labor shortages, equipment breakdowns, regulatory demands, and tight finances. Federal financial crime regulations do not usually rank high on their list of concerns.
Today, we are focusing on exactly that – a new rule from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).
The positive news is that FinCEN’s Residential Real Estate Reporting Rule (RRE Rule), which takes effect March 1, 2026, is unlikely to impact most routine farm operations.
That said, it is worth raising awareness about these new requirements and alerting farmers to potential new fees and requirements that could arise in connection wither their next residential real estate transaction.
Background
You may recall the name FinCEN from last year’s significant developments surrounding the beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirements for owners of domestic companies under the Corporate Transparency Act. That issue generated considerable attention and debate.
Now, FinCEN is back in the headlines, this time targeting residential real estate transactions. The RRE Rule was finalized to increase transparency in non-financed transfers of residential property. Simply, the rule aims to curb money laundering by mandating the reporting of beneficial ownership information (BOI) for the owners of businesses (such as LLCs or corporations) or trusts involved as buyers or “transferees” of residential property without a traditional mortgage or bank financing.
Law enforcement officials believe that all-cash or other non-financed transactions can sometimes serve as vehicles for concealing illicit funds. By requiring the reporting of BOI, they aim to uncover the true individuals behind these legal entities or trusts, ultimately helping to identify, disrupt, and prevent such money laundering schemes.
When Does the RRE Rule Take Effect?
March 1, 2026.
What Transactions Must Be Reported?
Transfers of property are reportable when they meet all of the following criteria:
- The property is residential.
- This includes single-family homes, townhouses, condominiums, cooperatives, and apartment buildings designed for 1-4 families.
- The transfer is non-financed.
- This means there is no mortgage or loan from a financial institution that is already subject to anti-money laundering laws.
- The purchaser of the property is a legal business entity or trust.
- This rule does not apply to purchases made by individuals.
- No exemption applies (see below).
Who Files the Report?
The best news about this new reporting rule? The buyer (or “transferee”) of the property is not responsible for reporting the BOI to FinCEN (unless they happen to be one of the specific professionals listed in the cascade below).
Instead, FinCEN assigns reporting responsibility through a structured “reporting cascade.” This hierarchy identifies common real estate professionals involved in property transfers and ranks them in order of priority. The obligation falls on the first applicable professional in the sequence. Professionals can also enter into a written designation agreement to shift the responsibility among themselves for added flexibility and/or convenience.
The cascade order is as follows:
- The person listed as the closing or settlement agent on the closing or settlement statement.
- If none, the person who prepared the closing or settlement statement.
- If none, the person who records the deed.
- If none, the title insurance underwriter.
- If none, the person who disburses the greatest amount of funds in connection with the transfer.
- If none, the person who evaluates or provides the title evaluation (e.g., Title Examiner, Attorney, Title Agent/Company).
- If none, the person who prepared the deed.
When Must the Report Be Filed?
The Real Estate Report must be filed within:
- 30 calendar days after closing; or
- By the last day of the next month following the month closing, whichever gives the most time.
What Information is Reported?
The reporting person must provide information about the transfer of residential property identifying the following:
- The reporting person
- The entity or trust receiving ownership of the property
- The beneficial owners of the purchasing entity or trust
- This includes a beneficial owner’s full legal name, date of birth, current residential address, citizenship, and a unique identifying number (an IRS TIN or passport number)
- Individuals signing the documents on behalf of the purchasing entity or trust
- The seller
- The residential property being transferred
- Total consideration and information about any payments made
Which Transactions Are Exempt?
FinCEN carved out several exemptions for “lower-risk transfers.” Those transactions that do not need to be reported include:
- Transfers of easements;
- Transfers resulting from death, pursuant to the terms of a will, trust, operation of law, or contractual provision like a transfer on death deed;
- Transfers as a result of divorce or dissolution;
- Transfers to a bankruptcy estate;
- Transfers already being supervised by a U.S. court;
- No-consideration transfers of property by an individual (or married couple) to a trust of which they are the grantor or settlor;
- Transfers to a qualified intermediary for purposes of a like-kind exchange under Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code; and
- Transfers for which there is no reporting person.
What is the Impact of This Rule on Residential Transfers?
For those transactions subject to the RRE Rule, the most noticeable impact is likely to be an additional fee (or an increase in fees) tied to the transfer of the property.
The designated reporting person will most likely charge a fee to cover the time and effort required to collect the necessary beneficial ownership information and prepare/submit the report to FinCEN.
What Does This Mean for Farmers?
For the vast majority of farmers, this rule will not apply. First, farmland is not classified as residential property and falls outside the scope of the rule. Second, most farm acquisitions involve financing. Third, routine estate planning transfers are exempt from any reporting obligations. In short, typical transactions like purchasing, selling, or passing down farmland, including the farmhouse itself, are highly unlikely to trigger any new reporting requirements.
The Narrow Scenario Where Farmers Might See an Impact.
That said, there is one specific scenario where a farmer or rural property owner might trigger the RRE Rule. If a farmer chooses to subdivide their property and separately survey off the farmhouse (treating it as distinct residential real estate) and then attempt to gift or transfer that farmhouse to an LLC, then the farmer likely has a reportable transfer on his or her hands. In this narrow case, the transfer likely would not qualify for any of the rule’s exemptions, such as those for routine estate planning gifts to trusts created by the individual, and would therefore require the designated reporting person to collect beneficial ownership information for the parties involved and file it with FinCEN.
Key Takeaway
In summary, FinCEN’s RRE Rule is not likely to affect the majority of farmers. That changes, however, in certain cases involving non-financed transfers of residential property (such as gifting a home to an LLC or conveying it to a trust where the seller/transferor is not the settlor or grantor of that trust). In those situations, do not be caught off guard if an additional reporting-related fee shows up at closing.
To be clear, it is not a fine or punishment for anything done wrong, it is simply the expense of doing business under the federal government’s new reporting requirements.
As with any transaction, proactive planning and clear communication with your attorney, accountant, or other trusted advisors can help ensure everything proceeds efficiently and without unexpected hiccups.
Tags: FinCEN, Property, Federal Law, Ag Law, Farm Law, Estate Planning, Gifting, LLC, trusts
Comments: 0
By: David Marrison, OSU Extension Field Specialist, Farm Management
The early bird registration deadline of February 1 is nearing for agricultural professionals interested in attending the International Farm Transition Network’s (IFTN) Certified Farm Succession Coordinator Training on April 20-22 in Wooster, Ohio. The registration fee for this program is $900 prior before February 1 and will increase to $999 thereafter. Only 9 seats are available for this training.
Training Details
This 20-hour training will offer participants insight into the barriers to farm succession, strategies for working with families, facilitation tools to guide the process, and opportunities to consider real-life examples of farm transfer conflicts. Upon completion of the training, registrants are eligible to complete a certification exam to become a Certified IFTN Farm Succession Coordinator.
The training will be held at the Secrest Arboretum Welcome and Education Center in Wooster, Ohio on Monday, April 20 (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.), Tuesday, April 21 (8 a.m. to 5 p.m.) and Wednesday, April 22 (8 a.m. to 12 p.m.). Lunch will be provided each day as well as dinner on Monday. Tuesday evening dinner is on your own.
Instructors for this training include Joy Kirkpatrick (Farm Succession Outreach Specialist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison), Kiley Fleming (Executive Director of the Iowa Mediation Service), and David Marrison (OSU Extension Field Specialist in Farm Management). All have been farm succession instructors for over a decade and have extensive experience in human resources, facilitation, and mediation.
The early-bird registration fee is $900 per person before February 1 and $999 thereafter. The class is limited to the first 30 professionals registered. Pre-registration is required by March 15. The fee covers program materials, lunch each day, dinner on Monday evening, and a complimentary one-year membership to the International Farm Transition Network. Registration can be made at go.osu.edu/IFTN.
Hotel Block
A hotel block has been secured at the Hilton Garden Inn located at 959 Dover Road in Wooster, Ohio for $138/night (plus applicable taxes). Reservations can be made at: group.hiltongardeninn.com/emmmkw or by calling 330-202-7701 using the group code: IFTN.
Sponsors
Sponsors of this event include AgCredit, Farm Credit Mid-America, Nationwide, Ohio Corn Checkoff, Ohio Department of Agriculture, Ohio Small Grains Checkoff, Ohio Soybean Association, Ohio State Bar Association/Agricultural Law Committee, OSU Extension, Ohio Farm Bureau and the USDA Farm Service Agency.
Registration
Click here for Registration and program details can be found at: go.osu.edu/IFTN
Location
Secrest Arboretum Welcome and Education Center 2122 Williams Road Wooster, Ohio
For More Information
More information can be obtained by contacting David Marrison, OSU Extension Field Specialist, Farm Management at 740-722-6073 or marrison.2@osu.edu
Tags:
Comments: 0
Written by Staci N. Gamble, Research Fellow with the National Agricultural Law Center and law student at Florida A&M College of Law, and Ellen Essman
You may have heard about the crime of “deed fraud” in the news in recent years. Deed fraud is a crime where scammers forge property ownership documents to make it appear that someone’s home has been sold or transferred to the scammer. Once the fraudulent deed is recorded with the county, the scammer sells, mortgages, rents, or uses the property to launder money or create a shell company without the real owner knowing until it is too late.
What might deed fraud look like in practice? An example might be an adult child who, after a parent’s death, thought inheriting the family home would be the least of their worries. While grieving, the child discovers that a stranger had filed a fake deed claiming the parent sold the home for just a few dollars weeks before passing away. Through research, the child discovered documents that included forged signatures and falsified notary stamps. Scammers commonly commit deed fraud through forging signatures, falsifying documents, or illegally transferring property titles to themselves, leading to unauthorized sales of mortgages. Despite the true owner having clear proof of fraud, undoing this damage can become a months-long ordeal filled with court hearings, police reports, and costly legal filings. Landowners should be aware of how easily deed fraud can occur and how important it is to protect your property.
How common is deed fraud?
The FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) reported 11,578 real estate complaints nationwide in 2021, 11,727 in 2022, and 9,521 in 2023. The report in its entirety is available here. While these numbers are not huge, they do show that deed fraud and related real estate crimes are occurring across the United States.
In 2024, Franklin County created the “Deed Fraud Strike Force,” which included the county’s Auditor, Recorder, Treasurer, Commissioners, and Prosecuting Attorney. In their subsequent report, the Strike Force noted that out of the approximately 50,000 home titles processed every year in Franklin County, there are fewer than 10 deeds that are flagged as potentially fraudulent. Despite this low incidence of fraud, Franklin County wanted to get ahead of any growth of the crime with preventative efforts. To this end, the report also recommended Ohio legislation that would give the Auditor’s office greater authority to reject materially false or fraudulent documents, and authority to the Recorder and Auditor to require photo identification for certain real estate transfer and conveyance transactions. The Strike Force further recommended working with county courts to expedite returning properties involved in fraudulent transfers to their rightful owners.
While there have been stories of deed fraud throughout Ohio, it is still relatively rare, and there are steps you can take to protect yourself and your property.
What can I do to protect myself from deed fraud?
Those who own real estate, whether it’s located in a city, a suburb, or in a rural area, are highly encouraged to contact their county recorder’s offices for protection against deed fraud. Many counties have partnered with software vendors to monitor any changes to recorded documents in the county records. Software like Property Fraud Alert, AlertMe, and Fraud Sleuth are free services that help real estate owners protect their property. Once enrolled, property owners will receive email or telephone notifications when a document is recorded in the county using their name or business name. As an example, the sign up for fraud alerts in Pickaway County is available here. To find out if your county has a similar alert system, go to your county government’s website. Searching your county name and key words like “property fraud alert” is another approach that may be quicker than searching through your county website.
In addition to signing up for fraud alert software if it is available in your county, the Franklin County Deed Fraud Strike Force compiled a helpful list of steps a property owner can take to prevent deed fraud:
- Check your county recorder and auditor websites often by using the online records search tool to ensure there are no more deeds or mortgages you don’t know about on your property. (Checking this regularly can help you prevent/be aware of deed fraud even if your county doesn’t have fraud alert software).
- Pull credit reports to check for unauthorized activity. A free credit report can be obtained via: https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/free-credit-reports
- If your property is not occupied, check often to ensure that it is not occupied illegally. Ask someone you trust to look after your home if you are going to be away for an extended period of time (or set up a camera with remote access to monitor).
- Make sure the county auditor and treasurer have your contact address and/or email for you to receive assessment notices, tax bills, etc. Contact the auditor and treasurer if you suddenly stop receiving notices.
- Change online passwords regularly.
- Sign up for the electronic notice services if they are provided by your county auditor and county recorder.
- Make sure you are dealing with reputable companies and make sure you only trust your personal and financial information with those you truly can trust.
- When utilizing the services of a notary, first verify whether the notary is listed on the Ohio Secretary of State website at https://www.ohiosos.gov
What if deed fraud happens to me?
Despite monitoring, deed fraud can still occur, and courts in Ohio have ruled that if a homeowner’s property is taken by fraud, they are entitled to regain ownership; however, this requires clear and convincing evidence of the fraudulent act. For example, in the case Salone v. Stovall, which took place in Cuyahoga County, an elderly landowner was deceived into signing a page that had been secretly attached to a falsified deed transferring her home. When she discovered the deception, the trial court voided the fraudulent deed and restored title in her name. The court emphasized that it was not enough simply to take her word for it but, rather there needed to be clear and convincing evidence of fraud occurring. In Salone, that standard was met through evidence showing that the notary had only seen the signature page and not the deed itself, that Salone never intended to transfer her property, and that she was misled into believing she was signing papers for a reverse mortgage. This combination of deception persuaded the court that the deed was the product of fraud. You can read the case in full here. Cases like Salone highlight the importance of clear and convincing evidence needed if a property owner wants to get their land restored. Thus, signing up for fraud alert software offered by your county can provide early notification of any suspicious filings and help you to provide evidence.
If a property owner suspects deed fraud, the following steps should be taken immediately to help protect the homeowner’s rights:
- Obtain a certified copy of the recorded deed from your County Recorder’s office.
- File a police report with your local police department and/or county sheriff’s department.
- The Franklin County Deed Fraud Strike force recommends alerting your county auditor, treasurer, and recorder of the suspected fraud and following the steps they suggest.
- The Franklin County Strike Force recommends notifying your mortgage company, banks and credit cards of the identity theft and fraud.
- The Strike Force also suggests filing an identity theft notification and affidavit with the Ohio Attorney General.
- Contact your title insurance company (if applicable).
- Consult a real estate or property attorney – They will advise on your legal options and next steps such as:
- Recording an affidavit or statement of facts regarding the property – A formal declaration in the public record stating the deed is fraudulent.
- Filing a Quiet Title or similar action – A legal case to have a court confirm you are the rightful owner of the property.
- Gather evidence of identity theft or fraud.
- Change passwords for online accounts.
- Check your credit report for odd, unfamiliar or unauthorized matters. A free credit report can be obtained via: https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/free-credit-reports
Although deed fraud is still somewhat rare in Ohio and across the U.S., it is important to be aware than it does happen, and that it can happen to you if you own real estate. If you take precautions to monitor your properties ahead of time, you will be more aware of any suspicious activity occurring that might affect your ownership, and able to respond more quickly if you believe deed fraud has occurred.
When it comes to starting a new business venture in Ohio, the first major hurdle is choosing a legal structure. The Ohio Secretary of State recently released business formation data that highlights a substantial trend in how new business owners are organizing their business affairs.
The numbers are clear: the Limited Liability Company (LLC) is the undisputed king of Ohio business. According to the latest data, the breakdown of new businesses registered in Ohio in 2025 is as follows:
LLCs: 146,455
Corporations: 16,127
Limited Liability Partnerships (LLP): 654
Limited Partnerships (LP): 472
General Partnerships: 247
To put this in perspective, nearly 90% of all new business formations in Ohio are LLCs. While corporations still hold a steady second place, they are outnumbered by LLCs by a ratio of more than 9-to-1. Traditional partnerships, once common in family farming, are now rarely used.
Why the LLC Is the Overwhelming Choice
Why are new business owners opting for the LLC? It comes down to three main reasons: liability protection, simplicity and versatility.
1. The Shield of Liability Protection
A primary reason to establish an LLC is to protect personal assets. In a Sole Proprietorship or General Partnership, the owner or each partner can be held personally liable for the debts and legal obligations of the business. If the farm encounters a liability incident or faces a lawsuit, personal assets could be at risk.
The LLC creates a "corporate veil." It separates the individual from the entity, meaning that, in most cases, a member's risk is limited to the amount they have invested in the company. Corporations also offer similar liability protection.
2. Ease of Maintenance
While Corporations also offer liability protection, they come with a heavier administrative burden. Corporations are required to hold annual meetings of shareholders and directors, keep detailed minutes, and follow formal bylaws.
For a family farm, these formalities can be cumbersome. The LLC offers a more "informal" environment. There is no statutory requirement for annual meetings or a board of directors, allowing farm families to focus more on operations and less on paperwork.
3. Tax Versatility
The LLC is versatile when it comes to the IRS. By default, a single-member LLC is treated as a disregarded entity (taxed like a sole proprietorship), and a multi-member LLC is taxed as a partnership. However, an LLC can also elect to be taxed as an S-Corp or a C-Corp if that proves more beneficial for the owners. This "pick your own" tax strategy allows farms to adapt as their revenue grows without having to change their entire legal structure.
Summary
The data from the Secretary of State confirms what we see in practice: the LLC has become the standard vehicle for Ohio business. With 146,455 new LLCs formed, it is clear that the combination of "corporate-style" liability protection and "partnership-style" flexibility is what Ohio business owners are looking for.
As always, before forming a new entity, consult with an attorney and a tax professional to ensure the structure matches your specific transition and financial goals.
We’ve been fielding many questions and concerns about the development of data centers and its potential impacts on agriculture and communities across Ohio. Newly proposed legislation indicates that lawmakers are hearing the same. House Bill 646, introduced on January 15 in the House of Representatives by Rep. Gary Click (R-Vickery) and Rep. Kellie Deeter (R-Norwalk), would establish a Data Center Study Commission to examine data center development in Ohio. Here are the initial details of the proposal.
Sponsor Intentions
Both sponsors state that although data centers offer economic development, constituents have raised concerns about where that development occurs and potential impacts on energy prices, water supply and farmland, and that a growing number of local communities have taken actions to ban data centers.
"We have heard the concerns of our communities and taken time to speak with those in industry. We feel that this is the best approach to ensure that every voice is heard," stated Rep. Click.
Rep. Deeters followed by stating that “[i]n my rural district of 33 townships, residents are raising serious concerns about greenfield development and the loss of productive farmland. This bill creates a Data Center Study Commission so Ohio can take a thoughtful approach, possibly even prioritizing redevelopment of brownfields and existing industrial sites before expanding into rural green space. The proliferation of data centers is necessary and inevitable, but the growth should be smart, balanced, and respectful of local communities.”
Emergency Declaration
Its sponsors declare the bill to be an emergency measure that would go into immediate effect upon passage in the Ohio legislature. The bill is “necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety,” state the sponsors, who provide several reasons for the emergency declaration:
- Data centers are proliferating rapidly in the absence of a specific regulatory structure, or historical precedent, which is generating serious concerns among the citizens of this state and creating an unstable environment for local decision making.
- Verifiable information is crucial to such citizens when facing new development within their communities and local political subdivisions tasked with approving such development, as well as investors who wish to site data centers throughout Ohio.
- Verifiable information benefits all concerned parties and is urgently needed due to the rapid development of this emerging technology and the lack of general knowledge concerning data centers in Ohio.
Data Center Commission Members
Under the bill, the Data Center Commission (Commission) would consist of 13 members, to be appointed within 30 days of the bill’s effective date as follows:
- Three members appointed by the Governor.
- Three members appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
- Two members appointed by the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives.
- Three members appointed by the President of the Senate.
- Two members appointed by the Minority Leader of the Senate.
Charge to the Commission
The bill defines a “data center” as a “physical facility equipped with, or connected to, one or more computers that is used for processing or transmitting data” and requires the Commission to examine each of the following in regard to data centers:
- Environmental impact;
- Effect on the electrical grid, including on behind the meter electric supply and on consumer utility rates;
- Water usage and impact on local water supply;
- Noise pollution;
- Light pollution;
- Impact on the local economy;
- Impact on farmland;
- Value to national security and the development of artificial intelligence;
- Reports of foreign propaganda intended to create opposition to data centers;
- Any other relevant topics determined by the Commission.
Meetings of the Commission
The proposal requires the Commission to hold at least four public meetings. Two of the meetings must be to hear public testimony on the topics above, and two of the meetings must be to hear invited expert testimony on those topics.
Commission Report
The Commission must work quickly, as the proposal orders the Commission to submit a report of its findings and any legislative recommendations to the Governor and the Ohio legislature not more than six months after the bill’s effective date. After issuing its report, the Commission would terminate.
Follow H.B. 646 on the Ohio General Assembly website.