Agritourism operators: now is the time for liability risk management

Many of Ohio’s farm markets, u-picks, farm petting zoos, and other “agritourism” operations are preparing to open for their spring and summer activities.  While these types of agritourism activities are popular, they raise unique liability concerns. That’s because there is always the risk of an injury or harm when bringing people onto the farm, whether allowing them to be near animals, riding on equipment, in crop and orchard areas, or engaging in physical activities.  Along with readying the farm for the new season, agritourism operators should also plan for the possibility of a liability incident. 

Here are five actions agritourism providers can take to manage liability risk.

1. Conduct a safety review.   Inspect your operation with visitor safety in mind.  Remember, many visitors have never been on a farm or don’t understand what might harm them on a farm. Examine all areas visitors will be in, including surrounding “off limits” areas visitors might try to access, and identify any possible safety hazards.  Pay extra attention to areas children will use. Consider these questions:
   • Are the facilities, fences, gates, steps, play areas, and other structures in good repair?
   • Are doors and gates working and latching properly?
   • Are pesticides, herbicides, or chemicals out of sight and inaccessible?   
   • Are animal enclosures sound, do any “dangerous” animals need to be fully off limits to visitors, and are there handwashing stations near animal contact areas?
   • Are there any accessible dangers that might attract children, such as ladders, equipment, lagoons, large tractor tires, and wells?
   • Are parking areas and walkways sufficiently sized and buffered from traffic?

Look for the potential dangers, then take actions such as making repairs; installing blockades, fences, locks, or other structures to keep visitors away; putting up signs and warnings; providing instructions or maps; expanding parking areas or walkways; and removing unnecessary dangers.

2. Complete our Agritourism Ready course.  Be prepared for the possibility of an emergency situation—both natural and man-made disasters can raise the need for an emergency response. How an operation responds to an emergency can reduce harm to visitors and ultimately affect the operation’s risk of liability or harm.  OSU offers a curriculum that helps agritourism operations reduce risks by developing an emergency management plan.  Access this valuable and free resource at https://u.osu.edu/agritourismready/.
3. Train employees.  A business is legally responsible for the negligence of its employees, so it’s important to reduce the risk that an employee’s actions will cause or contribute to a visitor’s harm.  Provide thorough safety training to agritourism employees.  Make sure employees know how to do the job, including activities like operating equipment, maintaining and cleaning visitor areas, handling animals, overseeing children, and responding to a safety incident.
4. Obtain agritourism insurance coverage.  Insurance is an excellent liability management tool.  But be aware that a typical farm insurance policy does not cover agritourism activities, and a separate endorsement or policy may be necessary.  Even if a farm has a separate endorsement for agritourism, it’s still important to ensure that any new agritourism activities fall under the agritourism coverage. Now is the time to schedule a visit with the insurance provider and review the insurance policy.  Don’t be secretive about what you’re doing in your operation.  Share all activities with the provider and ensure that each activity is covered by the policy.  If an activity is not covered or will require costly additional coverage, weigh the risk, costs, and benefits of continuing to offer the activity.
5. Install the Ohio agritourism immunity sign.  I’ve been surprised recently by how many operations I’ve visited that do not have an agritourism immunity sign on display. Posting the sign is a critical risk management tool.  That’s because Ohio law provides civil immunity for qualifying agritourism providers if a visitor suffers harm or injuries due to the “inherent risks” of being on a farm.  To receive the immunity, however, an agritourism provider must post the required agritourism immunity sign at the entrance to or near the agritourism activities.  The agritourism immunity sign warns visitors that the operation is not liable for harm from inherent risks and that they are assuming the risk of participating in agritourism activities. But while it’s an important tool, don’t let the sign replace all of the other recommendations provided in this article.  Read more about the immunity law and the agritourism immunity sign in our law bulletin, Ohio’s Agritourism Law, available on farmoffice.osu.edu.

Agritourism is a thriving industry in Ohio. Taking legal precautions to manage liability risk will help ensure that agritourism remains an important component of Ohio agriculture. To learn more about legal issues in agritourism, visit OSU’s Agritourism Law Library on the Farm Office website at farmoffice.osu.edu/law-library.

Change in Ohio law creates new “low risk” license for mobile food vendors

In time for another farmers’ market season, Ohio has a new food license available for food entrepreneurs who sell eggs, meats, and certain home-produced foods at farmers markets and similar venues.  A new “Low Risk Mobile Retail Food Establishment license” (Low Risk MRFE) offers a lower risk level license that will benefit many of Ohio’s farm-based and home-produced food vendors. Regulations establishing the new license were effective on February 12, 2024.

Ohio law has historically required an MRFE license for vendors selling certain foods from mobile units such as trucks, trailers, tents, and stalls at farmers markets and similar locations. All mobile vendors, regardless of the risk level of the food they were selling, had to obtain the same type of MRFE license.  That changes with the new regulations, which create two types of MRFE licenses, low risk and high risk, and different licensing requirements for each.

The new Low Risk MRFE license offers two positive changes for the mobile food vendors who qualify for it:

• The Low Risk MRFE license will be half the cost of the High Risk MRFE license, and,
• Low Risk MRFE license holders can use non-mechanical refrigeration rather than commercial equipment to maintain their food product temperatures.

Here’s an explanation of the new Low Risk MRFE license option.

Mobile vendors that qualify for the Low Risk MRFE license

The Low Risk MRFE license is available for mobile vendors whose activities fall into a low risk level.  Low risk level activity means the food poses a potential risk to the public in terms of sanitation, food labeling, sources of food, and food storage practices at the mobile unit, but the risk is lower than higher risk food activities. Low risk activities involve foods that were “pre-packaged” before being brought to sell at the mobile unit, and include the activities of holding pre-packaged refrigerated or frozen foods that require temperature controls for safety and offering pre-packaged foods that do not require temperature controls for safety. See Ohio Admin. Code 901:3-4-05(E)

If pre-packaged, these foods that are held and offered for sale from a mobile unit will qualify for the Low Risk MRFE:

• Eggs
• Frozen and refrigerated meats and fish
• Foods from a licensed Home Bakery that require refrigeration, such as cheesecakes and cream pies
• Cheeses and dairy products from a licensed Milk Producer or Milk Processor
• Frozen foods from a facility with a Frozen Foods License
• Cottage foods from a cottage food operation, but the MRFE is not required  if the cottage foods are sold at any of these locations:  farmers market, farm market, registered farm product auction, a political subdivision sponsored festival or celebration, or direct from the producer’s residence.

Holding temperature requirements for a Low Risk MRFE

There has long been confusion about the type of equipment an MRFE vendor must use to maintain the temperature of refrigerated or frozen foods, and some health departments have required vendors to use only commercial refrigerators or freezers.  That will change under the new rule, which allows a Low Risk MRFE license holder to choose whether to use mechanical or non-mechanical refrigeration such as ice, ice packs, gel packs, or dry ice.  The rule does not require the use of commercial equipment. 

There are several important points mobile vendors should note about the new rule:

• When applying for the MRFE license or renewal, a vendor should explain their refrigeration choice and method, and the health department might require a plan or process for replenishing the cooling material if using non-mechanical equipment.  The health department will note the refrigeration information on the MRFE license.
• The new rule requires a vendor to refresh or replenish the ice, ice packs, gel packs, or dry ice every four hours.
• A vendor should keep a working thermometer inside each cooler or refrigerating unit and be able to document that the temperature is within the allowable range for the food held in the unit.
• Gel packs and dry ice are preferred non-mechanical methods for maintaining food packaged in paper because wet ice can destroy paper packages and increase food safety risk.

See Ohio Admin. Code 3717-1-04.1(K)(K)

Lesser fee for Low Risk MRFE licenses

The new rule specifies that a Low Risk MRFE license fee will be 50% of the health department’s fee for high risk MRFEs. See Ohio Admin. Code 901:3-4-03(A)

New signage requirement for MRFEs

The new rule also requires any MRFE vendor to display specific information on the exterior of the mobile unit, in individual lettering at least three inches high and one inch wide.  The information must include:

• Name of the operation
• The operation’s city of origin
• The operation’s telephone number, including area code

See Ohio Admin. Code 901:3-4-02(I)

High Risk MRFEs

A High Risk MRFE creates higher potential risks due to concerns with receiving, holding, cooking, cooling, processing, handling, and heating food products.  Activities such as assembling or cooking, heating, and reheating foods are high risk activities.  A few examples of high risk activities include making kettle corn or soft serve ice cream. Most farm-based and home-produced food activities will not require the High Risk MRFE.  See Ohio Admin. Code 901:3-4-05(E)

For additional questions about the new Low Risk MRFE license, contact your local health department or the Ohio Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety Division.

Farm Office Live is this Friday, April 19

We have a packed schedule of topics for the final Farm Office Live webinar of the season this Friday, April 19 at 10 a.m. Our industry guest will be appraiser Tim Harpster, who’ll talk with us about trends in farm appraisals.  Also on the agenda are several tax topics, the popular crop input outlook, the Dairy Margin Coverage Program, transferring operating assets, and an update on the Corporate Transparency Act.  Here’s the line up:

• CAT Tax – Closing Accounts
• Taxation of Equipment Trade-ins
• 20204 Crop Input Outlook
• OSU Fertilizer Survey Release
• Dairy Margin Coverage Program
• Beginning Farmer Tax Credit Update
• Transferring Operating Assets
• Update on Beneficial Ownership Reporting under the Corporate Transparency Act
• Trends in Farm Appraisals, with industry guest and appraiser Tim Harpster

Register for the live webinar at go.osu.edu/farmofficelive, where our recordings of Farm Office Live are also available for later viewing.  This is our final webinar of the season.  After a summer break, we’ll kick off the new season at the Farm Science Review in September.

Ohio Legislative Roundup

Authored by Ellen Essman, CFAES Government Relations

The Ohio General Assembly is back in Columbus after the March 19^th primary election, and committee schedules are already filling up. Given the increased activity in recent weeks, we thought it was a good time to examine what has happened legislatively this year up until this point.

H.B. 64—Eminent Domain. This bill was first introduced by Representatives Kick (R-Loudonville) and Creech (R-West Alexandria) in February of 2023. The bill’s purpose is to make it more difficult for governmental agencies or private entities to take private property through eminent domain. On February 6, 2024, the bill was updated with a Substitute House Bill 64 in the House Civil Justice Committee.

The previous version of the bill excluded recreational trails from the definition of “public use,” meaning that property could not be taken by a government agency for recreational trails. The current version of the bill narrows this language, allowing for a taking for the purpose of creating recreational trails, but not in cases where the property is not adjacent to a public road and where the property’s primary use will be for a recreational trail.

Another substantial change between the versions involves compensation offers from the government entity to the landowner. In the original version of the bill, a government entity would not have been allowed to reduce an offer made to purchase property before proceedings commenced if the reduction was based on hard-to-discover issues with the property. The current version would exclude this provision, restoring an agency’s authority to reduce offers.

Substitute House Bill 64 would also make changes to compensation and awards landowners could receive if the issue goes to court.

H.B. 197—Solar Development. Sponsored by Representatives Hoops (R-Napoleon) and Ray (R-Wadsworth), H.B. 197 would establish a the community solar pilot program and the solar development program. Under the language of the bill, a “community solar facility” is defined as a single facility with at least three subscribers and a nameplate capacity of 10 megawatts or less, or 20 megawatts or less if on a distressed site. Furthermore, the bill would require The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) to establish a Community Solar Pilot Program of 250 megawatts on sites in the Appalachian region of the state. The bill would also amend the state competitive retail electric service policy to encourage community solar facilities in the state and allow subscribers to community solar facilities to receive monthly electric bill offsets.

H.B. 324—Motor Fuel. Introduced by Representatives McClain (R-Upper Sandusky) and Klopfenstein (R-Haviland) in November of 2023, H.B. 324 passed the House on February 7, 2024 and was referred to the Senate Ways and Means Committee on February 27. 

If passed, the bill would authorize a temporary, nonrefundable income or CAT tax credit of 5 cents per gallon for retail dealers who sell high-ethanol blend motor fuel containing between 15-85% ethanol. The tax credit would be limited to five years or to a total of $10 million, whichever occurs first.

H.B. 327—Employee Verification. H.B. 327, introduced by Representatives Wiggam (R-Wayne County), and Swearingen (R-Huron), had its first committee hearing in House Commerce & Labor on February 13, 2024. The bill would require political subdivisions, private employers employing 75 individuals within the state of Ohio, and nonresidential construction contractors to verify each new employee’s work eligibility through the federal E-verify program. E-Verify is an online program that helps employers verify employees’ eligibility for employment. If the bill were to pass, the employer would be required to keep a record of the verification for the duration of the employee’s employment, or three years, whichever is longer. During testimony on the bill, Representatives Wiggam and Swearingen indicated an interest in possibly lowering the employee threshold, citing Florida’s 25 employee threshold.

H.B. 347—Farming Equipment Taxes. This bill was introduced by Representative Don Jones (R-Freeport) and referred to the House Ways and Means Committee in early December of 2023. Since then, the bill has been heard in committee twice, once in January, and once in February, both times without testimony. The bill would change the way farmers claim a tax exemption on certain purchases.

Currently, when an Ohioan engaged in farming, agriculture, horticulture, or floriculture is buying a product for “agricultural use,” they must provide the seller with an exemption certificate. This certificate comes from the Ohio Department of Taxation and relieves the seller of the obligation to collect the sales tax on behalf of the state. However, the Department of Taxation can later determine that the purchase does not qualify for exemption, and then the farmer would be expected to pay the tax.

H.B. 347 would slightly alter this current way of doing things when it comes to the purchase of certain vehicles and trailers. Under the bill, the purchaser could receive an agricultural use exemption for taxes on these vehicles if the purchaser shows the seller copies of the purchaser’s Schedule F—the federal income tax profit of loss from farming form—for three most recent preceding years. Alternatively, a farmer could obtain a certificate from the Department of Taxation verifying that they have filed a Schedule F for three years in lieu of providing the forms directly to the seller. Notably, the bill states that “no other documentation or explanation shall be required by the vendor or the tax commissioner” to prove that the purchase qualifies for the agricultural use exemption.

The following vehicles and trailers would be included under the bill:

• Trailers, excluding watercraft trailers;
• Utility vehicles, (vehicles with a bed, principally for the purpose of transporting material or cargo in connection with construction, agricultural, forestry, grounds maintenance, land and garden, materials handling, or similar activities);
• All-purpose vehicles, (vehicles designed primarily for cross-country travel on land and water, or on multiple types of terrain, but excluding golf carts);
• Compact tractors (garden tractors, small utility tractors, and riding mowers).

H.B. 364—Seed Labeling; Noxious Weeds. Sponsored by Representatives Dobos (R-Columbus), and Klopfenstein (R-Haviland), H.B. 364 had its first hearing in the House Agriculture Committee on February 6, 2024.  Specifically, the bill would allow the Ohio Prairie Association and other noncommercial entities sharing seeds to distribute milkweed seeds non-commercially to i members, with the intent of promoting habitats for pollinators like monarch butterflies.

The bill would legally define “non-commercial seed sharing” as the distribution or transfer of ownership of seeds with no compensation or remuneration. Also included in the definition are a list of situations that are not considered “non-commercial seed sharing,” including when:

• The seeds are given as compensation of work or services rendered;

• The seeds are collected outside of Ohio;
• The seeds are patented, treated, or contain noxious weed species or invasive plants.

H.B. 364 also includes a definition of “seed library,” which it defines as a non-profit, governmental, or cooperative organization or association to which both of the following apply:

• It is established for the purpose of facilitating the donation, exchange, preservation, and dissemination of seeds among the seed library’s members or the general public.
• The use, exchange, transfer, or possession of seeds acquired by or from the non-profit governmental, or cooperative organization or association are obtained free of charge.

The bill would further exempt non-commercial seed sharers and seed libraries from labeling, advertising, handling, and sales restrictions under Ohio law.

To further the goal of promoting pollinators and habitats, H.B. 364 would make changes to the requirements for maintaining toll roads, railroads, or electric railways. Current law requires managers of such thoroughfares to destroy a number of noxious weeds along the roadway or in right of ways. The bill would no longer require the destruction of Russian thistle, Canadian thistle, common thistle, wild lettuce, wild mustard, wild parsnip, ragweed, milkweed, or ironweed. 

H.B. 447—Property Tax. Introduced on March 12, 2024 by Representative Loychik (R-Cortland), H.B. 447 was referred to the House Ways & Means Committee on April 2, 2024. The bill would modify and expand property tax homestead exemptions, gradually reduce school districts’ 20-mill floor for tax levies and modify the formula for determining farmland’s current agricultural use value (CAUV). The change to CAUV would involve the calculation of the overall capitalization rate for agricultural land.  Current law does not establish a minimum rate, but the bill would do so by stating that overall capitalization rate plus additur shall not be less than 10 percent.  Since a higher capitalization rate results in a lower CAUV value and because the current capitalization rate is around 8%, the change would likely lower CAUV values.

S.B. 156—Scenic Rivers. This bill, sponsored by Senators Reineke (R-Tiffin) and Hackett (R-London) passed the Ohio Senate on January 24, 2024, and was referred in the House to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on February 6, 2024. The bill would transfer the Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Program from the Division of Parks and Watercraft to the Division of Natural Areas and Preserves (DNAP) in ODNR. The bill would narrow the scope DNAP’s authority to watercourses designated as wild, scenic, and recreational rivers. Currently, the law is written so that the regulatory agency has authority over areas. “Areas” encompass not just the water, but also the land surrounding rivers. On the other hand, “watercourses” are defined as “substantially natural channel[s] that [are] at least five miles in length with recognized banks and a bottom in which the flow or water occurs.” Thus, agency oversight would be diminished from the river and its surrounding area to just confines of the river itself.

The bill also clarifies that a watercourse designation does not affect private property rights adjacent to a designated river.

Finally, the bill would require DNAP to adopt rules for the use, visitation, and protection of scenic river lands and provide for the establishment of facilities and improvements that are necessary for their visitation, use, restoration, and protection, but do not impair their natural character.

S.B. 226—Agricultural Land. S.B. 226 was introduced by Senator Terry Johnson (R-McDermott) in late February and referred to the Veterans & Public Safety Committee on February 27, 2024. The bill would create the Ohio Property Protection Act, which would include protection of:

• Agricultural land, defined as “land suitable for use in agriculture,” including the water on the land, airspace above the land, and natural products and products from the land;
• Any land located within a twenty-five-mile radius of any installation under the jurisdiction of the United States Armed Forces;
• Any land located within a twenty-five radius of a critical infrastructure facility.

To protect property in the above categories, the bill would make it illegal for the following people and entities to acquire or purchase such property:

• Those persons and foreign adversaries listed on a registry compiled by the Ohio Secretary of State;
• A government of a foreign adversary;
• An individual who is a citizen of a foreign adversary;
• A business that is headquartered in a foreign adversary;
• A business that is directly or indirectly owned or controlled by one or more of the above persons and entities; and
• An agent, fiduciary, or trustee of the above persons and entities.

Opportunities for agricultural attorneys and law students

I’m often asked how an attorney becomes an “agricultural attorney.”  The answer is simple: through knowledge. The best agricultural attorneys I know have two kinds of knowledge: they know agriculture, and they know the laws that affect agriculture.  There are several upcoming events that can help attorneys and law students gain the legal knowledge required to be an agricultural attorney.

The National Agricultural Law Center is currently offering two opportunities for attorneys and law students:

1. Research Fellowships for Law Students.  NALC employs law students in their second and third years as Research Fellows who help conduct legal research and writing projects. It’s an outstanding opportunity to gain research experience and access to the world of agricultural law.  As a partner of the NALC, our OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program usually has one or two NALC Research Fellows working with us. For the upcoming term, specific research topics for NALC Research Fellows might include but are not limited to:

• Environmental regulation of agriculture;
• Food safety and food labeling;
• Agricultural finance and credit;
• Other relevant issues such as agricultural data and technology, land use, farm programs, local and regional food systems and agricultural labor;
• Legal issues of importance to underserved populations, including BIPOC, such as heirs property, access to credit, environmental law/justice and food system equity.

Interested law students must act quickly, as the fellowship applications are due April 5, 2024.  Application information is available on the National Agricultural Law Center website.

2. Agricultural & Environmental Law Conferences.  NALC is hosting two legal conferences this June:  the Mid-South Agricultural & Environmental Conference in Memphis, Tennessee on June 6-7 and the Western Agricultural & Environmental Law Conference on June 13-14.  We’ve attended the NALC conferences, and they’re excellent learning experiences that cover the breadth of topics we face in agricultural law.  The conferences also allow attendees to interact with speakers and other attorneys from around the country, and law students are welcomed.  Registration is now open for both conferences and is available on the National Agricultural Law Center website.

Two additional opportunities for agricultural attorneys and law students are on the horizon, and include:

1. The Cultivating Connections Conference.  Our program here at OSU, in partnership with Iowa State University’s Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation and the National Agricultural Law Center, is planning to host the second annual Cultivating Connections Conference for attorneys, accountants, appraisers, financial planners, and other professionals interested in farm transition planning.  We welcome law students and other young professionals to join us. The conference will be in Cincinnati, Ohio on August 4 and 5, and registration will soon be available on our Farm Office website.
2. The AALA Annual Educational Symposium.  The American Agricultural Law Association (AALA) will host its annual conference on November 7- 9 in Memphis, Tennessee.  The AALA also includes law students in its conference, and offers several activities for the students.  The AALA is currently accepting presentation proposals for the conference and registration will open later this Spring on the AALA website.

If you are or want to be in agricultural law, don’t miss out on these opportunities to gain the critical knowledge necessary to be an agricultural attorney.  Agriculture needs you!

The Ag Law Harvest

By: Jeffrey K. Lewis, Esq. Program Coordinator Income Tax Schools at The Ohio State University

Spring has officially sprung, and so have a few interesting legal updates. In this edition of the Ag Law Harvest we cover aggravated vehicular assault in a farm utility vehicle, “Made in the USA” labels, the Corporate Transparency Act’s legal woes, USDA’s Dairy Margin Program, and the U.S House Committee on Agriculture’s Agricultural Labor Working Group’s final report. 

Driver of Farm Utility Vehicle Cannot be Found Guilty of Aggravated Vehicular Assault. 
The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that a driver of a farm utility vehicle involved in a crash cannot be convicted of a felony for injuring passengers because the vehicle does not meet the definition of a “motor vehicle” under Ohio’s criminal code. Joshua Fork of Sandusky County crashed his Polaris utility vehicle while driving under the influence at a party in 2020. Two of Fork’s passengers sustained serious injuries as a result of the accident. Fork was convicted of operating a vehicle under the influence (OVI), and two counts of aggravated vehicular assault. Fork did not contest his OVI conviction but did appeal his aggravated vehicular assault conviction to the Sixth District Court of Appeals. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court of Ohio. 

In its decision, the Court found that Ohio law has two definitions of “motor vehicle.” One definition applies strictly to traffic laws and the other applies more broadly to Ohio’s “penal laws.” The Court held that the definition of “motor vehicle” that applies to penal laws, such as aggravated vehicular assault, exempts utility vehicles. The Court concluded that because of the utility vehicle exemption and the fact that the utility vehicle’s principal purpose is for farm activities, Fork cannot be found guilty of vehicular aggravated assault. To read more on the Supreme Court’s decision, visit: https://www.courtnewsohio.gov/cases/2024/SCO/0321/230356.asp

USDA Announces Final Rule on “Made in the USA” Labels. 
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) announced the finalization of a rule to align the voluntary “Product of USA” label claim with consumer understanding of what the claim means. The USDA’s final “Product of USA” rule permits the voluntary use of the “Product of USA” or “Made in the USA” label claim on meat, poultry, and egg products. However, these labels can only be used if the products are derived from animals that were born, raised, slaughtered, and processed in the United States. The rule aims to prevent misleading U.S. origin labeling, ensuring that consumers receive truthful information about the origins of their food.

Under the final rule, the “Product of USA” or “Made in the USA” label claim will remain voluntary for meat, poultry, and egg products. It will also be eligible for generic label approval, meaning it won’t require pre-approval by the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (“FSIS”) before use, but establishments must maintain documentation supporting the claim. Additionally, the rule permits other voluntary U.S. origin claims on these products, provided they include a description on the package of the preparation and processing steps that occurred in the United States upon which the claim is made. 

Corporate Transparency Act Loses First Federal Court Battle. 
As we have previously reported (here), the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) requires certain business entities to file Beneficial Ownership Information (“BOI”) with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) or face civil and criminal penalties. However, an interesting twist in the CTA saga has occurred. A federal court in Alabama issued an opinion ruling the CTA unconstitutional, concluding that the CTA exceeds the U.S. Constitution’s limits on Congress’s power, and issued an injunction against the U.S. Government from enforcing the CTA against the named plaintiffs in the case.  Therefore, the named plaintiff, Isaac Winkles, and companies for which he is a beneficial owner or applicant, the National Small Business Association, and the approximately 65,000 members of the National Small Business Association are currently not required to report beneficial ownership information to FinCEN. Everyone else must still comply with the CTA and the BOI reporting requirements. 

FinCEN released a statement acknowledging the court’s ruling but emphasized that only the named plaintiffs are excused from reporting beneficial ownership information to FinCEN at this time. On March 11, 2024, the U.S. Government filed a notice of appeal of the lower court’s ruling, hoping to reverse the injunction and the court’s decision. We will continue to monitor the situation and keep you informed of any updates to the CTA and BOI reporting requirements.

USDA Announces 2024 Dairy Margin Coverage Program. 
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) announced that starting February 28, 2024, dairy producers in the United States can enroll in the 2024 Dairy Margin Coverage (“DMC”) program. Enrollment for the 2024 DMC coverage ends on April 29, 2024. 

The USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) has made revisions to the DMC regulations to allow eligible dairy operations to make a one-time adjustment to their established production history. This adjustment involves combining previously established supplemental production history with DMC production history for dairy operations that participated in Supplemental Dairy Margin Coverage in previous coverage years. DMC has also been authorized through the calendar year 2024 as per the 2018 Farm Bill extension passed by Congress.

FSA Administrator Zach Ducheneaux encourages producers to enroll in the 2024 DMC program, citing its importance as a risk management tool. The program has proven effective, with over $1.2 billion in Dairy Margin Coverage payments issued to producers in 2023. Ducheneaux highlights the program’s affordability, noting that it offers a sense of security and peace of mind to producers.

DMC is a voluntary risk management program that provides protection to dairy producers when the margin between the all-milk price and the average feed price falls below a certain dollar amount selected by the producer. In 2023, DMC payments were triggered in 11 months, including two months where the margin fell below the catastrophic level of $4.00 per hundredweight, marking a significant development for the program.

House Committee Releases Final Report Recommending Changes to H-2A Program. 
On March 7, 2024, the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture’s Agricultural Labor Working Group (“ALWG”) released its final report containing policy recommendations for U.S. agricultural labor. The report includes significant reforms to the H-2A program, many of which, as announced by the ALWG, received unanimous support from the bipartisan working group. The recommended policies encompass creating a single H-2A applicant portal, implementing H-2A wage reforms, establishing a federal heat standard for H-2A workers, and granting year-round industries such as livestock, poultry, dairy, peanuts, sugar beets, sugarcane, and forestry access to the H-2A program.

OSU Small Farm Conference is April 6

It’s time for our annual Small Farm Conference, a day-long educational program for those who live on and operate smaller-scale farms. This year, the conference will be on April 6 on the eastern side of Ohio at the Mid-East Career Technical Center in Senecaville. Our Agricultural & Resource Law Program will teach a “Solar and Wind Leasing” session in the Business Management track.  Other track topics include Horticulture and Produce Production, Livestock, Natural Resources, and The Farm Kitchen. 

Here’s the session and speaker line-up for each track:

Track 1:  Horticulture and Produce Production

• Organic Pest Management – Logan Minter, OSU Extension Specialty Crops Field Specialist
• Planning for Planting – High Tunnels, Low Tunnels and Gardens – Kacey Gantzer, West Virginia Dept. of Agriculture
• Common Produce Disease and Management – Frank Becker, OSU Extension Educator
• Growing Produce with Hydroponics – Tim McDermott, OSU Extension Educator
• Introduction to Bramble Production – Ryan Slaughter, OSU Extension Educator

Track 2:  Business Management

• Ohio Landowner/Hunter Access Partnership Program – John Morton, ODNR Wildlife Management Consultant
• Small Farm Equipment – Frank Becker, OSU Extension Educator
• Solar and Wind Leasing – Peggy Hall, Attorney, OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program
• Budgeting to Make Large Purchases – Jennie Schultice, Farm Credit
• What Do I Need to Start and Set Up a Business? – David Marrison, OSU Extension Farm Management Field Specialis

Track 3:  Livestock

• Raising Meat Rabbit – Kim Ray, The Ray Family Farm
• Pasture Poultry – Tyler and Jessica Radcliff, B&R Farms
• Outdoors Hands-on Demonstration! Livestock Handling form Large to Small Animals – OSU Field Specialists and The Mid–East Career Technical Center
• How to Make Goat Milk Soap – Radisson Norman, Bubble Goat Soap Co.

Track 4:  Natural Resources

• Invasive Plant Species – Carrie Brown, OSUExtension
• Timber Harvesting and Marketing – Jake Peer, Peer Family Forestry
• Coyote-Livestock Interactions and Research Efforts – OHcoyote Research Group
• Basics of Growing Paw Paws – Valerie Libbey, Libbey Farm
• Products From the Hive – Joan Leary, Products of the Hive

Track 5:  The Farm Kitchen

• Seed Starting – Carri Jagger, OSU Extension Educator
• Herb Vinegars: Come to Where the Flavor Is – Kate Shumaker, OSU Extension Educator
• Cooking With a Slow Cooker or Instant Pot – Misty Harmon, OSU Extension Educator
• Freeze Drying vs. Dehydrating – Candace Heer and Shari Gallup, OSUExtension Educators
• Food Preservation Basics – Emily Marrison, OSU Extension Educator

Registration for the conference is $100 and includes lunch, session materials, and a trade show.   Registrations are due March 28, so register now!  To register, visit https://go.osu.edu/2024osusmallfarmconference. 

Preparing farms for the solar eclipse

Co-authored by Peggy Kirk Hall, OSU Agriculural & Resource Law Program and Wayne Dellinger, OSU Extension Educator in Union County and member of the OSU Ag Safety Team.

The upcoming solar eclipse on April 8 is a rare event that could bring a half-million people into the 124-mile eclipse path across Ohio, according to the Ohio Emergency Management Agency.  For months, we’ve been hearing about eclipse issues ranging from eye safety to best viewing locations.  But for farmers and farmland owners within the eclipse viewing area, the solar eclipse raises unique issues and concerns. Should we take steps to secure the farm?  Will it delay our farming activities? What if we have trespassers or want to invite people to the farm to view the eclipse? 

With the eclipse quickly approaching, now is the time to address the safety and legal questions it creates for the agricultural community.  To provide guidance on these questions, our Agricultural & Resource Law Program partnered with the OSU Ag Safety Team. We offer these five steps farmers and farmland owners can take now to prepare for the solar eclipse:

1. Secure the farm property. 
2. Understand trespass laws.
3. Know responsibilities for invited guests.
4. Plan ahead for farming activities.
5. Be prepared to react to an incident.

For each step, we provide explanations of the concerns and issues that might arise, any laws that apply, and actions farmers and farmland owners can take to reduce their safety and legal concerns.  Read the entire article at https://farmoffice.osu.edu/solar-eclipse-2024.

Join us for Farm Office Live on March 15

March is already upon us and we’re busy preparing for the March edition of Farm Office Live.  Grab a cup of coffee and join us next Friday morning at 10:00 a.m. for our March webinar.  We’re excited to have a few industry professionals on this month for a panel discussion on the latest WASDE report and strategies for 2024 grain marketing.  The full Farm Office Live agenda includes:

• Second Marriages and Transition Planning — Robert Moore, Attorney, OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program
• The New Rule for Independent Contractors — Jeff Lewis, Attorney, OSU Income Tax Program
• Legislative Update — Peggy Hall, Attorney, OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program
• 2024 Crop Input Outlook — Barry Ward, Leader, Production Business Management
• Industry Panel — WASDE and Strategies for Grain Marketing, moderated by Bruce Clevenger, OSU Field Specialist in Farm Management
• Hot Topics and Upcoming Programs — David Marrison, Interim Director, Farm Financial Management & Policy Institute

Register for Farm Office Live at no cost through this link.  Can’t attend?  We record every Farm Office Live webinar and post the recordings at https://farmoffice.osu.edu/farmofficelive.

The Contract Law Harvest

By: Jeffrey K. Lewis, Esq. Program Coordinator Income Tax Schools at The Ohio State University

In this rendition of the Ag Law Harvest, we bring you some contracts! Over the course of February, there were three Ohio cases that demonstrate the importance of having a written contract, the ability to form a contract through your actions, and the need to make sure specific terms within a contract can be enforceable. 

Handshake Agreements Can Be a Double-Edged Sword.
In this case we are introduced to two brothers (the “Plaintiffs”), who were equal partners in a farming business that included buying and selling livestock. As part of their business, Plaintiffs sold cattle to Defendants between 2009 and 2017. The parties did not have a formal contract in place and conducted business on a “handshake agreement.” 

The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants acted as intermediaries, purchasing heifers from them, and reselling them to other dairy farmers or at market. According to Plaintiffs, it was customary for the Defendants to pay for the cattle immediately upon delivery or within 30 days. However, around 2016, Defendants allegedly wrote checks for seven transactions but asked Plaintiffs not to cash them due to insufficient funds. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants never honored these checks, resulting in an outstanding amount of $128,950. Despite Plaintiffs’ attempts to collect, Defendants denied owing any money, arguing that Plaintiffs were fully paid through later payments or third-party transactions. This disagreement led to the filing of Plaintiffs’ lawsuit.

In February of last year, the trial court granted Plaintiffs summary judgment and awarded them $120,150. Defendants appealed the trial court’s decision arguing that summary judgment was inappropriate because whether or not Defendants owed Plaintiffs any money was in dispute. The appellate court agreed. 

In its opinion, the appellate court stated that it was clear that “the trial court weighed the credibility of the parties. . .” The appellate court also made it clear that “[s]ince resolution of the factual dispute will depend, at least in part, upon the credibility of the parties or their witnesses, summary judgment in such a case is inappropriate.” Furthermore, the court noted that because there was no written contract between the parties, the only evidence to demonstrate the particulars and common practices of the handshake agreement comes from the personal knowledge of the Plaintiffs and Defendants. Therefore, because both parties disagree as to whether Defendants owe any money to Plaintiffs, the trial court should not have ruled in favor of Plaintiffs on summary judgment. Consequently, the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, potentially including a trial.

This case shows us two things, the importance of having a written contract and the importance of recordkeeping. The parties to this lawsuit must now argue that their recollection of events is the true and accurate recollection. Both parties will likely be judged by a group of jurors and one party is bound to be out a large sum of money. A written contract could have avoided much of the dispute by including language about the process for payment, record keeping requirements, and other terms and conditions that would have governed the relationship of the parties. Now, because there is no written contract, this case becomes a case of “he said-he said.”  

Implied Contracts Can Be Formed Based on a Tacit Understanding.
The second case demonstrates that the surrounding facts and circumstances can create an implied contract even when no signed contract exists. In this case Plaintiff, a residential construction company, provided the Defendant-homeowners with two written quotes for roofing and other work at their home. The quotes included various services and specified a 30% upfront payment with the remainder due upon completion of the work. Although the Defendants did not sign or date the quotes, they paid Plaintiff $6,815, which was stated to be a 30% prepayment for the total quoted amount of $22,717. 

After completing the roof, Plaintiff submitted a bill to the Defendants for the balance due on the roof. The Defendants took issue with the invoice for two reasons: (1) the price did not match the quotes, and (2) Defendants believed that payment would not be due until all items on both quotes were completed. Ultimately, the parties parted ways and Defendants asked Plaintiff to not return to their home leaving the remainder of the work listed on the two quotes uncompleted. 

Plaintiff sued the Defendants alleging breach of contract, seeking payment for the finished roof. The matter proceeded to a bench trial where the trial court found that the two quotes and the 30% payment operated as an implied contract and not an express one. The trial court also held that Plaintiff did partially perform the agreement and should be paid for the roof installation. 

The Defendants appealed, arguing that Plaintiff could not recover in this case because Plaintiff only alleged a breach of an express contract and did not seek recovery for breach of an implied contract. The appellate court disagreed. The court noted that under Ohio law there are three types of contracts: (1) express contracts, (2) implied in fact contracts, and (3) implied in law contracts. 

The court went on further to explain when the three different kinds of contracts are created. An express contract is created when there is an offer and acceptance of written terms. An implied in fact contract requires a “meeting of the minds” and that “is shown by the surrounding circumstances which [make] it inferable that [a] contract exists as a matter of tacit understanding.” Lastly, with an implied in law contract “there is no meeting of the minds” but the law will create civil liability for a person in receipt of benefits which they are not justly entitled to retain.   

The appellate court held that the trial court correctly found there was no express contract between the parties, rather there was an implied in fact contract. The court reasoned that the two written quotes and the 30% prepayment created a tacit understanding amongst the parties. Furthermore, the court concluded that because an implied contract existed amongst the parties, Plaintiff is entitled to recover for the work they did do. Lastly, the trial court noted that Defendants should have been aware that Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim would not only apply to express contracts but also to implied contracts. 

Noncompetition Agreement Found to be Unenforceable. 
In our final case we are introduced to a salesman that was being sued by his former employer for breach of a non-competition agreement (the “NCA”) after going to work for a direct competitor. Plaintiff, Kross Acquisition Co., LLC (“Kross”), is a basement waterproofing contractor. Kross provides service in southwestern Ohio, southeastern Indiana, and northern and eastern Kentucky. Kross’s former employee Roger Kief left to work for Groundworks Ohio, LLC (“Groundworks”). Groundworks is engaged in substantially the same business as Kross and serves the entire state of Ohio as well as Kentucky, Indiana, and many other states. 

Kief began working for Kross in 2017 and signed the NCA. The NCA prohibits Kief from disclosing confidential information and from working anywhere in Ohio or Kentucky for any competing company for a period of two years after leaving Kross. In February of 2022, Groundworks offered Kief an identical position with a start date of March 2022. 

Kross filed lawsuit against Kief for failing to adhere to the NCA. The trial court found the NCA unenforceable and granted summary judgment in favor of Kief. Kross filed an appeal arguing that the trial court erred when it found the NCA unenforceable. The appellate court disagreed. The court noted that the following factors are used to analyze whether a noncompetition agreement can be enforceable: 

1. Time and space limitations: Whether the agreement specifies a reasonable duration and geographic scope for its restrictions.

2. Sole contact with the customer: Whether the employee is the primary or sole contact with the employer’s customers.

3. Confidential information or trade secrets: Whether the employee has access to and possesses confidential information or trade secrets of the employer.

4. Limitation of unfair competition: Whether the covenant aims to prevent unfair competition or if it overly restricts ordinary competition.

5. Stifling of inherent skill and experience: Whether the agreement unreasonably stifles the employee’s inherent skill and experience in the industry.

6. Disproportionate benefit to the employer: Whether the benefit gained by the employer from the agreement outweighs the detriment imposed on the employee.

7. Bar on sole means of support: Whether the agreement bars the employee’s only means of earning a livelihood.

8. Development of restrained skills during employment: Whether the skills restricted by the agreement were actually developed during the employee’s tenure with the employer.

9. Incidental nature of forbidden employment: Whether the forbidden employment is merely incidental to the employee’s primary employment with the employer.

Based on the foregoing factors, the court found that the geographic and time limitations “exceeded what is necessary to protect Kross’s legitimate business interests.” Therefore, the appellate court found the NCA unenforceable.