Risk Management Agency moves date for harvesting cover crops on Prevented Planting acres

With many farmers in Ohio unable to plant before the Final Planting Date for crop insurance, questions are arising about planting and harvesting cover crops on those prevented planting acres.  USDA Risk Management Agency (RMA) rules allow operators to plant cover crops on prevented planting acres and to hay, graze, or cut the cover crops for silage after the posted “harvest date.”  In previous years, the harvest date for cover crops was November 1.   If an operator harvested the cover crop before that date, the prevented plant payment would be reduced from 100% to 35%.

The RMA has changed the harvest date for 2019, however.  In response to reduced livestock feed supplies that will result from the loss of planted acres this year, the RMA has moved up the cover crop harvest date to September 1.  An operator who plants a cover crop after the Final Planting Date and then cuts the crop for forage on or after September 1 can still receive 100% of the prevented plant payment, even if the operator sells the forage and regardless of whether the operator planted the cover crop during or after the Late Planting Period.  The Final Planting Date in Ohio was June 5 for corn and June 20 for soybeans; the Late Planting Period ended on June 20 for corn and runs until July 15 for soybeans.  Note, too, that a cover crop that was in the ground before the Final Planting Date but was not terminated because the operator couldn’t plant the intended corn or soybean crop can also be harvested for forage on or after September 1.

The RMA’s chart below illustrates payment scenarios for cover crops planted and harvested on prevented planting acres.

Capture

Other requirements for cover crops

While the cover crop harvest date seems pretty straightforward, don’t be fooled–crop insurance provisions can be tricky.  Farmers planning to put out cover crops on prevented plant acres should work closely with their crop insurance agents to ensure that all policy provisions and documentation requirements are met.

An initial requirement is that the cover crop planted must meet the definition of an “acceptable cover crop” for crop insurance purposes.   The RMA considers an acceptable cover crop as one that is recognized by agricultural experts as agronomically sound for the area for erosion control or other purposes related to conservation or soil improvement and planted at the recommended seeding rate.  OSU agricultural experts can help provide guidance on acceptable cover crops.

Operators should also be aware that many seed licenses, particularly for bio-engineered seeds, restrict the use of the seed to grain production only.  In those situations, planting the seed for a cover crop or harvesting it for silage would violate the seed licensing contract and create a liability situation for the operator.

Additionally, note that crop insurance provisions prohibit harvesting the cover crop for grain or seed, and an operator who does so will lose all of the prevented plant payment.  The cover crop harvest can also impact other provisions, such as the farm’s Actual Production History (APH) yields.  These and other provisions highlight the importance of a close working arrangement with the crop insurance agent in order to comply with RMA’s cover crop provisions.

For RMA’s guidance on Prevented Planting Flooding, go to this page.  The site contains a comprehensive list of questions and answers on prevented planting, along with information about the 2019 cover crop provisions.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Business and Financial, Contracts, Crop Issues, Uncategorized

Farms, recreational activities and legal risk

With summer in full swing, Ohio’s poor planting season won’t dampen the desires of those who want to use farmland for recreational activities like fishing or riding ATVs.  And while we worry over the washouts in so many farm fields, an archaeological buff recently explained that those wash outs provide a good opportunity to find arrowheads and other relics.  The fact that a field wasn’t planted didn’t stop a hot air balloon operator from asking a farmer if he could land in the unplanted field recently.   Even when the land is not highly productive, Ohio farmland is always appealing to recreational enthusiasts for these and other types of recreational activities.

But what if a farmer doesn’t want recreational enthusiasts on the property or doesn’t want the risk of potential liability for a recreational user?  A few of our resources provide guidance for these situations, which we can address in two important questions:

  1. Do you not want people engaging in recreational activities on your farm? If so, then take a look at our law bulletin on The Do’s and Don’ts of Dealing with Trespassers on the Farm.  If you don’t give a person permission to come onto the farm for recreational purposes, the person is trespassing if he or she chooses to enter the property without your permission.  But be aware that a landowner can’t intentionally put a trespasser in harm’s way and in certain situations, can be liable for a trespasser who suffers harm on the property.  Know the legal rules for dealing with trespassers so that you can protect your property without risking liability.  We explain these rules and situations in the law bulletin.
  2. Are you okay with letting a person use your farm for recreational activities? If so, you’ll want to read our law bulletin on Okay to Play:  Ohio Recreational User Statute Limits Liability for Hunters, Snowmobilers, and More.  Ohio’s Recreational User Statute offers immunity to landowners for allowing recreational uses, but only if the landowner meets the four conditions of the law.  A landowner of nonresidential premises who gives permission to a person to engage in recreational activities without charging a fee doesn’t have the traditional legal duty to keep the recreational user safe from harm.  Our law bulletin explains each of the statute’s important conditions in detail so that a landowner can qualify for its liability protection.

Like the weather, managing the risk of recreational users and trespassers on the farm is a constant challenge for farmers.  But unlike the weather, a landowner can effectively control this type of risk.  When someone shows up to fish, ride ATVs, hunt arrowheads or land a balloon on the farm, be ready by having a good understanding of the laws that apply to recreational users and trespassers.

Leave a comment

Filed under Property

Join us July 15 for Solar Leasing 101

Many landowners across the state have been contacted by solar energy developers interested in leasing farmland for utility-scale solar energy production.  The combination of improved technology, reduced production costs, the phase-out of federal tax credits, and the willingness of landowners to enter into long-term leases have made 2019 a sunny year for entering into solar leases.

The sudden surge of solar leasing has led to new questions about what this type of lease mean for a landowner, a community, and the future.  As these leases may last for 30 years or more, it is important to understand what a utility-scale solar energy development looks like, along with the terms in a solar lease and the implications of signing.

Join OSU Extension Field Specialists Peggy Kirk Hall and Eric Romich on Monday, July 15th for a conversation on solar leasing.  Together, the presenters will address solar development trends, converting farmland to solar production, and key considerations to weigh before signing a solar lease.  Those interested may choose between one of two sessions:

  • Morning session: Madison County from 9:00am to noon at the Red Brick Tavern (1700 Cumberland Road/Route 40, London, Ohio).  Breakfast will be provided!
  • Afternoon session: Greene County from 2:00pm to 5:00pm at the Greene County Extension office (100 Fairground Road, Xenia, Ohio).

Each meeting will cover the same information.  Registration is required, but there is no cost to attend.  To register for the morning session in Madison County, email Griffith.483@osu.edu or call 740-852-0975.  To register for the afternoon session in Greene County, email Corboy.3@osu.edu or call 937-372-9971.

Click HERE to view the official flier.  In the meantime, if you want to learn more about some of the documents and major considerations that will be discussed at the meeting, click HERE.  If you want to learn more about some common solar lease terms, click HERE.

Leave a comment

Filed under Renewable Energy

What’s happening with hemp?

Written by Ellen Essman, Senior Research Associate, OSU Extension Agricultural & Resource Law Program

Since the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, the world of agriculture has been all abuzz about the potential for adding a new crop to the rotation—industrial hemp. (Our post on the hemp provisions in the Farm Bill is available here.) The passage of the bill caused states like Ohio, which did not previously implement hemp pilot projects in 2014, to scramble to introduce state legislation allowing hemp to be grown within their boundaries.  What is more, questions have arisen about how hemp and products derived from the plant should be regulated under the federal law.

Ohio continues to tinker with its hemp bill

Ohio’s bill to legalize hemp is currently stalled in the Ohio House of Representatives. Speaker Larry Householder indicated that the House will not vote on the bill until September 2019.  The hemp bill was first introduced in the Ohio Senate in February, passed the Senate in March, and advanced to the House floor on June 4. The bill still contains a lot of the same language and provisions from when it was introduced in February, which you can read about in our post here.  However, since it was first introduced, numerous additions have been inserted into the language of the bill.

First, the original version of the hemp bill only required a license to cultivate hemp.  The version currently on the House floor also requires a license to process hemp into different products.  Moreover, the current version of the bill would make licenses for both cultivating and processing hemp valid for three years instead of five years.  The new language in the bill also creates a Hemp Marketing Program, which would fall under the same laws and regulations as the grain and soybean marketing programs.  Legally cultivated hemp would also be added to the list of agricultural uses permitted under the current agricultural use value (CAUV) for land, which would mean land used to grow hemp would qualify for a lower tax assessment.

The most recent version of the bill also adds many more topics to the list for the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) to promulgate via regulation.  The new version tasks ODA with adding conditions for acquiring hemp cultivation licenses, such as experience, and procurement of equipment, facilities, a sufficient amount of land, and financial responsibility requirements.  ODA is charged with establishing a compulsory setback distance between hemp cultivation and medical marijuana cultivation, and with including regulatory language banning hemp cultivation or processing licensees from also cultivating or processing marijuana.  ODA must also establish requirements for recordkeeping and reporting for licensees.  These are just a few of the new regulations ODA is authorized to enact.

The most recent bill, much like the first version, includes overarching prohibitions.  The current list of actions banned under the law is as follows:

  • No person shall cultivate hemp without a hemp cultivation license issued by ODA;
  • No person shall process hemp without a hemp processing license issued by ODA;
  • A person who is licensed to cultivate or process hemp shall not violate any provision of the hemp law or regulations;
  • A person subject to a corrective action plan issued by ODA shall not fail to comply with the plan;
  • No person may transport hemp in violation of the hemp law or rules; and
  • Any other requirements or procedures necessary to enforce the law.

The most recent rendition of Ohio’s hemp bill would keep the provisions of the first version of the bill relating to negligent and reckless violations of the law, but new enforcement tools have been added.  Finally, the new and improved hemp bill includes an emergency clause, which would make the legislation immediately effective upon its passage in both houses and signature by the governor.

FDA holds a hearing on the safety of CBD products

On May 31, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) held public hearing to gather information and scientific data about cannabis products, so that such information can be used for future regulatory oversight by the agency.  Industrial hemp is a type of cannabis plant, so the hearing included discussion of hemp and hemp-derived compounds, such as cannabidoil (CBD).  In particular, FDA was interested in whether different amounts of cannabis in a product would affect people differently, or cause safety concerns, whether there is any data to show that cannabis is safe in food and dietary supplements, whether there are, or if there need to be, industry standards in the manufacturing of cannabis products to ensure safety and quality, and how marketing and labeling should be used to address potential risks connected to using cannabis products.   The hearing did not result in any FDA decisions on cannabis products and their regulation, although it is an indicator that regulations will probably be coming soon.  This means that sales of CBD oil and other products made from hemp will have to follow FDA regulations in order to be manufactured and sold.  Information on the hearing is available here.  As we reported in one of our Ag Law Harvest posts, those people still interested in submitting their comments about cannabis and cannabis compounds to the FDA can do so until July 2.

USDA releases its interpretation on transportation of hemp

In another federal development, on May 28, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) released a memo addressing the transportation of hemp.  The 2018 Farm Bill specified that states can ban hemp production and sales within their boundaries, but states cannot bar legally grown hemp from being transported through their state.  Since hemp regulations under the 2018 Farm Bill have not yet been promulgated, technically, there is no hemp that has been legally produced under the new law yet.  As a result, law enforcement in several states has continued to arrest people transporting hemp.  Furthermore, in at least one decision in Idaho, a court determined that it was illegal to transport hemp.  USDA released the memo to explain its disagreement with such interpretations.

In its memo, USDA says that the language decriminalizing hemp in the 2018 Farm Bill was “self-executing,” so it is no longer illegal to possess hemp or THC from hemp. USDA further asserts that hemp grown under pilot programs allowed under the 2014 Farm Bill can be legally transported across state lines because the 2018 Farm Bill did not immediately repeal the pilot programs.  USDA argues that this means that the hemp grown under 2014 pilot programs is legally produced, can be legally possessed, and therefore can be legally transported across state lines under the new Farm Bill.

It is important to note that USDA’s memo is meant as guidance to the states, and is legally persuasive, but not legally binding.  This means a person could theoretically still be arrested for transporting hemp through a state, and the courts may or may not uphold the state’s decision.  After the federal regulations under the 2018 Farm Bill are in place, however, there will be less wiggle room for states to carry out their own interpretations, which will likely but an end to this controversy.

What does it all mean?

While the regulation of hemp products, the transportation of hemp, and the legality of hemp in certain states may still be in question, all of this activity means that the state and federal governments are attempting to work all the kinks out.  Over time, the rules regarding how to produce, process, sell, and transport hemp, will likely become more defined and clear.  In the meantime, those interested in legally growing and processing hemp will have to play a waiting game.

Leave a comment

Filed under Crop Issues, Uncategorized

The Ag Law Harvest

Written by Evin Bachelor, Law Fellow, OSU Extension Agricultural & Resource Law Program

The OSU Extension Farm Office team has returned from the National Farm Business Conference in Wisconsin.  We gained some fresh perspective on events beyond Ohio’s borders, but are happy to be back in slightly warmer weather.  Our colleagues from across the nation presented on a variety of farm management topics, and we had a chance to discuss some of our recent projects.  We also toured a number of dairy and agritourism farms, and of course ate lots of cheese curds.  The fresh perspective means that it is time for a fresh Ag Law Harvest.

Here’s our latest gathering of agricultural law news that you may want to know:

OSU Extension Ag Law Team featured on Agronomy and Farm Management Podcast.  Recently we had a chance to talk with OSU Extension Educators Amanda Douridas and Elizabeth Hawkins, who together moderate the bi-weekly Agronomy and Farm Management Podcast for OSU Extension.  We discussed the status of Ohio’s hemp bill and what we expect to happen in the near future with hemp regulation and production.  Then we provided an update on the Drewes Farm Partnership v. City of Toledo lawsuit, which grapples with the legality of the Lake Erie Bill of Rights.  Click HERE to listen to the podcast, and look for episode 28.

Minnesota focuses new commercial nitrogen fertilizer regulations on drinking water quality.  In an effort to protect public drinking water sources, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture has chosen to regulate the commercial application of fertilizer.  The state has long regulated the application of manure, but not commercial nitrogen.  The regulations focus on two types of geographic areas: regions with vulnerable soil (coarse soils, karst geology, or shallow bedrock) and farms located in Drinking Water Supply Management Areas.  These management areas are designated based upon nitrate levels found in the drinking water.  Starting in 2020, the state will ban the application of commercial nitrogen in these areas during the fall months and on frozen ground.  Farms in any of the 30 Drinking Water Supply Management Areas would have to follow best management practices to start, but if nitrate levels continue to exceed state limits, then the state may impose additional restrictions in an area to reduce nitrogen pollution.  For more information on Minnesota’s Groundwater Protection Rule, click HERE.

Federal court puts a hold on Bud Light’s “100 percent less corn syrup” ads.  If they missed seeing it live during the Super Bowl, most people in the agricultural industry have at least seen the recent Bud Light advertising campaign that claims the beer uses no corn syrup while its competitors do.  Shortly after the initial release of the ad, MillerCoors sued Anheuser-Busch, which makes Bud Light.  MillerCoors wants a permanent injunction that would stop Bud Light from continuing its corn syrup advertising campaign, arguing that the advertisements are false and misleading to consumers.  The first step to a permanent injunction is often a preliminary injunction, which makes a party act or not act in a certain way only while the case is pending.  The judge presiding over the lawsuit granted MillerCoors’ motion for a preliminary injunction in part.  The judge ordered Anheuser-Busch to temporarily stop using ads mentioning corn syrup if those ads do not contain language explaining that Bud Light does not use corn syrup in the brewing process.  The judge’s act does not ban the ad that premiered during the Super Bowl.  Rather it only blocks ads released later that claim Bud Light uses 100 percent less corn syrup than competitors like MillerCoors.  Click HERE to view the complaint, and HERE to view the judge’s order.

It’s (mostly) official: USDA’s ERS and NIFA are headed to Kansas City.  U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue announced the USDA’s selection of the Kansas City, Missouri region as the new headquarters for the Economic Research Service and National Institute of Food and Agriculture.  The location changed caused a great deal of controversy as some viewed it as a political move.  However, the USDA has maintained that relocation will save millions of dollars over the next few years and put the agencies closer to a number of other USDA offices in Kansas City, such as the Farm Service Agency’s Commodity Operations Office.  The Secretary reduced some of the controversy by scrapping plans to place the agencies under the USDA’s Chief Economist, who is a political appointee.  Before we call the move a done deal, we must note that Congress could stop the plans.  The U.S. House of Representatives might block the move via a Department of Agriculture-FDA spending bill currently under consideration.  Click HERE to read Secretary Perdue’s press release.

Bayer announces multi-billion dollar hunt for glyphosate replacement.  Somewhat buried in a press release titled “Bayer raises the bar in transparency, sustainability and engagement,” Bayer recently announced a substantial investment in its weed management research.  Over the next ten years, the company plans to spend 5 billion euros, or roughly 5.6 billion U.S. dollars, to develop weed control products as alternatives to glyphosate.  The announcement comes at a time with thousands of plaintiffs across the United States have claimed that the widely-used glyphosate caused their cancer.  As we have previously discussed in the Ag Law Blog, the first three juries have in total awarded plaintiffs billions of dollars in damages.  Bayer continues to fight the allegations and defend its product, but the press release marks the first time that Bayer has publically announced a search for an alternative to glyphosate.  It remains to be seen whether the press release could have an impact in the lawsuits, but Bayer will likely try to keep the press release out of the trials by using court rules of evidence.

Ohio House passes amusement ride safety bill.  County fair season has officially kicked off in Ohio, and some state lawmakers want to make sure that amusement rides at those fairs are safe.  House Bill 189 seeks to heighten Ohio’s amusement ride safety inspection standards and impose additional duties on amusement ride owners.  The bill would require the Ohio Department of Agriculture to adopt ride classification rules that identify types of rides needing more comprehensive inspection, along with the minimum number of inspectors and number of inspections for each ride.  Further, the bill would require amusement ride owners to keep a manual for each amusement ride, and make it available upon request of an inspector.  Amusement ride owners would also have to keep records, including documents and photographs, of all major repairs along with all locations where the owner stored or operated each ride.  The bill includes an emergency clause, which would allow it to take effect as soon as the Governor signs it.  Lawmakers named the bill “Tyler’s Law” after the young man who died following an equipment breakdown at the Ohio State Fair in 2017.  Click HERE for more information about the bill.

Leave a comment

Filed under ag law harvest, Uncategorized

Is your will clear? Tips for minimizing ambiguities

Written by Evin Bachelor, Law Fellow, OSU Extension Agricultural & Resource Law Program

Have you ever sent an email or text message that seemed perfectly clear to you, but the recipient read it differently than you had intended?  It happens all the time in everyday life.  We know what we mean in our head, but the message we send contains ambiguities.  While we can hopefully fix ambiguities in an email or text message quickly, wills can present a different story.

Once a person has passed away, fixing an ambiguity in a will is not easy because the best person to ask about intent cannot be called to testify.  Unfortunately, many families learn about the problems posed by ambiguities the hard way.

Take a recent example from Mahoning County.  In April, an Ohio appellate court upheld a probate court’s decision on how to distribute the assets of a Salem area farmer (“the farmer”).  This happened five years after the farmer passed away, and after two appeals of his estate.  He had a will, but it contained an ambiguity that resulted in years of litigation and delayed closure.

His will made one specific bequest, and the rest of his property would go into a general pot for his named beneficiaries to divide among themselves as they or the executor saw fit.  The specific bequest read, “I give, devise, and bequeath to my brother […], the real estate at […] together with all contents of said real estate, if owned by me at the time of my death.”  The court had no problem with the real estate because the will provided an address; however, what did the will mean by “all contents of said real estate”?

At the time of the farmer’s death, the real estate contained a residence, family heirlooms, valuables, household goods, farm equipment, and vehicles.  The brother argued that the specific bequest included farm equipment and vehicles because of their physical presence on the real estate.  The general beneficiaries disagreed, believing that the bequest applied to pieces of personal property like heirlooms within the house.  Looking only at the will, the probate court agreed with the general beneficiaries.  The brother appealed the decision.

The appellate court viewed “all contents of said real estate” as ambiguous, and sent the case back to the probate court to re-examine the will.  The law generally disfavors testimony about what a decedent intended because the law assumes that the will provides the best evidence of what the decedent wanted.  When a court finds an ambiguity in a will, it may consider evidence beyond the will, such as testimony or other documents; however, the law considers this evidence less authoritative because it is not directly from the decedent.

After the first appeal, the brother and attorney who drafted the farmer’s will testified in probate court about conversations with the farmer before he passed away.  The brother claimed that conversations with his brother about ideas to grow the farm meant that the farm equipment should go to him; however, the attorney claimed that the farmer intended only for the brother to receive family heirlooms within the house.  The court believed the farmer’s attorney, and again decided that the specific bequest did not include the equipment.

For a second time, the brother appealed the probate court’s decision.  This time the appellate court was satisfied with the probate court’s actions and upheld the probate court’s interpretation of the will.  Click HERE to read the court’s opinion, which is cited as Bogar v. Baker, 2019-Ohio-1762 (7th Dist.).

It took the family in the Bogar case five years to have a legal determination of what their loved one meant in his will.  One clause resulted in lots of costly litigation, not to mention the stresses on the family.

No family wants a contentious probate.  Losing a loved one is hard enough without having to go to court to fully litigate the contents of a will.  Fortunately, this is a problem that can be avoided, or at least minimized, with an effective plan.

Here are some tips to minimize ambiguities in your will:

  • Identify who you want to have specific pieces of your real and personal property.  For personal items such as family heirlooms, antiques, and art, you may leave a directive that names specifically which person receives what items.
  • Read through your will.  Does it make sense to you?  Does it sound like what you want to happen?
  • Consider showing your will to your executor and ask what he or she thinks your will says.  How would the executor carry out your will if you were gone today?  If he or she says something that you did not intend, you can still fix your will to more clearly align it with your wishes.
  • If you are concerned about beneficiaries challenging your will, you can include a no-contest clause that gives the executor final authority to interpret how to distribute your estate and penalize beneficiaries who challenge that distribution.  When included in a will, these clauses often prevent a beneficiary who challenges a will from receiving any property from the estate.

These tips do not guarantee a challenge-free probate process, but can help make your will as clear as possible.  If a question about your intent would still arise, having a couple of witnesses who can attest to your wishes will help the court get as close to your wishes as possible.  However, this requires you to tell each of these people the same thing and in a clear manner.  If you make any changes, you need to communicate that to your confidants.

Stay tuned in the next couple of months for new resources from our team about estate and business transition planning.  Until then, take a moment to review your estate plan!

Leave a comment

Filed under Estate Planning

Prevented planting, idle land and CAUV taxation

The decision on whether to take prevented planting is a tough one, but don’t let concerns about increased property taxes on idle land enter into the equation.  Ohio’s Current Agricultural Use Valuation program allows landowners to retain the benefit of CAUV tax assessment on agricultural land even if the land lies idle or fallow for a period of time.

Ohio’s CAUV program provides differential property tax assessment to parcels of land “devoted exclusively to agricultural use” that are ten acres or more or, if less than ten acres, generated an average gross income for the previous three years of $2,500 or more from commercial agricultural production.  Timber lands adjacent to CAUV land, land enrolled in federal conservation programs, and land devoted to agritourism or bio-mass and similar types of energy production on a farm also qualify for CAUV.

There must have been some farmers in the legislature when the CAUV law was enacted, because the legislature anticipated the possibility that qualifying CAUV lands would not always be actively engaged in agricultural production.   The law allows CAUV land to sit “idle or fallow” for up to one year and remain eligible for CAUV, but only if there’s not an activity or use taking place on the land that’s inconsistent with returning the land to agricultural production or that converts the land from agricultural production.  After one year of lying idle or fallow, a landowner may retain the CAUV status for up to three years by showing good cause to the board of revision for why the land is not actively engaged in agricultural production.

The law would play out as follows.  When the auditor sends the next CAUV reenrollment form for a parcel that qualifies for CAUV but was not planted this year due to the weather, a landowner must certify that the land is still devoted to agricultural production and return the CAUV form to the auditor.  The auditor must allow the land to retain its CAUV status the first year of lying idle or fallow, as long as the land is not being used or converted to a non-agricultural use.  If the land continues to be idle or fallow for the following year or two years, the auditor could ask the landowner to show cause as to why the land is not being used for agricultural production.  The landowner would then have an opportunity to prove that the weather has prevented plans to plant field crops, as intended by the landowner.  After three years, the landowner would have to change the land to a different type of commercial agricultural production to retain its CAUV status if the weather still prevents the ability to plant field crops on the parcel.  Other agricultural uses could include commercial animal or poultry husbandry, aquaculture, algaculture, apiculture, the production for a commercial purpose of timber, tobacco, fruits, vegetables, nursery stock, ornamental trees, sod, or flowers, or the growth of timber for a noncommercial purpose, if the land on which the timber is grown is contiguous to or part of a parcel of land under common ownership that is otherwise devoted exclusively to agricultural use.

Being forced out of the fields due to rain is a frustrating reality for many Ohio farmers today.   One positive assurance we can offer in the face of prevented planting is that farmers won’t lose agricultural property tax status on those fields this year.  Read Ohio’s CAUV law in the Ohio Revised Code at sections 5713.30 and 5713.31.

Leave a comment

Filed under Property, Tax