The Ag Law Harvest

As April comes to a close, we bring you another edition of the Ag Law Harvest. This month’s harvest brings you laws and regulations from across the country regarding a national drinking water standard, the Endangered Species Act, Ag-Gag laws, noncompete agreements, and pollution. 

EPA Finalizes First-Ever PFAS Drinking Water Standards
Earlier this month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) announced a final rule, issuing the “first-ever national, legally enforceable drinking water standard to protect communities from exposure to harmful per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also known as ‘forever chemicals’”. The final rule sets legally enforceable maximum contaminant levels for six PFAS chemicals in public water systems. The EPA also announced nearly $1 billion in new funding to “help states and territories implement PFAS testing and treatment at public water systems and to help owners of private wells address PFAS contamination.” The EPA suggests that this final rule “will reduce PFAS exposure for approximately 100 million people, prevent thousands of deaths, and reduce tens of thousands of serious illnesses.” 

Interior Deptartment Finalizes Rule to Strengthen Endangered Species Act
The Department of the Interior has announced that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finalized revisions to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). These revisions aim to enhance participation in voluntary conservation programs by promoting native species conservation. They achieve this by clarifying and simplifying permitting processes under Section 10(a) of the ESA, encouraging greater involvement from resource managers and landowners in these voluntary initiatives. For more information about Section 10 of the ESA visit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s website.

Kentucky Passes Ag-Gag Statute
On April 12, 2024, the Kentucky legislature overrode the governor’s veto to pass Senate Bill 16 into law. The new law, titled “An Act Relating to Agricultural Key Infrastructure Assets,” expands the definition of “key infrastructure assets” to include commercial food manufacturing or processing facilities, animal feeding operations, and concentrated animal feeding operations. It criminalizes trespassing on such properties with unmanned aircraft systems, recording devices, or photography equipment without the owner’s consent. The first offense is a Class B misdemeanor with up to 90 days imprisonment and a $250 fine, while subsequent offenses are Class A misdemeanors with up to 12 months imprisonment and a $500 fine.

Federal Trade Commission Bans Non-Compete Agreements
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced a final rule banning noncompete agreements and clauses nationwide. This move aims to promote competition by safeguarding workers’ freedom to change jobs, increasing innovation and the formation of new businesses. Under the FTC’s new rule, existing noncompetes for the vast majority of workers will no longer be enforceable after the rule’s effective date. However, existing noncompetes for senior executives – those earning more than $151,164 annually and in policy making positions – remain enforceable under the new rule. Employers will have to notify workers bound to an existing noncompete that the noncompete agreement will not be enforced against the worker in the future. The final rule will become effective 120 days after publication in the Federal Register.  

EPA Announces New Rules to Reduce Pollution from Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) unveiled a set of final rules designed to decrease pollution from fossil fuel-fired power plants. These rules, developed under various laws such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, aim to protect communities from pollution and improve public health while maintaining reliable electricity supply. They are expected to substantially reduce climate, air, water, and land pollution from the power industry, aligning with the Biden-Harris Administration’s goals of promoting public health, advancing environmental justice, and addressing climate change.

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.   

Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee at work on three bills

The holidays aren’t distracting the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee from considering three legislative proposals concerning scenic rivers, small beer brewers, and state agriculture day designations.   On December 12, the committee will hear testimony on all three bills.  Here’s a summary of the proposals.

S.B. 156 – Designation of wild, scenic, and recreational rivers.  Senators Bill Reineke (R-Tiffin) and Bob Hackett (R-London) introduced this legislation to revise portions of the Ohio Scenic Rivers Program that were raising concerns from private property owners.  The committee will hold its fourth hearing on the bill on December 12.  The proposal makes the following changes to the Ohio Scenic River Law:

• Clarifies that the designation of a Wild, Scenic or Recreational River does not grant authority to oversee private activities on private property or enter private land within the river area to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), which administers the program. 
• States that the agency has management and oversight of lands along a designated river only for those lands the state owns.
• Requires ODNR to adopt rules to govern the use, visitation, and protection of scenic river lands and to establish facilities and improvements within the areas necessary for visitation, use, restoration, and protection of the lands.
• Clarifies that certain public entities must obtain approval from the ODNR Director to perform certain construction activities within 1,000 feet of a wild, scenic, or recreational river. 
• Extends the public comment period following the announcement of intent to designate a new river from 30 days to 60 days.

S.B. 138 – Alcohol Franchise Law exemption for small brewers.  This bill introduced by Senator Andrew Brenner (R-Delaware) aims to help small brewers who annually manufacture less than 250,000 barrels (7.75 million gallons) of beer.  The bill exempts small brewers from Ohio’s Alcohol Franchise Law, which requires a beer or wine manufacturer to enter into a franchise agreement with a distributor and lays out requirements for the franchise agreement.  The exemption would allow small brewers to establish agreements with distributors under their own negotiated terms rather than the state-required terms.  S.B. 138 will see its second committee hearing on December 12.

H.B. 162 – Agriculture Appreciation Act.  The House of Representatives passed H.B. 162 in October, and it will have its  second hearing on December 12.  Proposed by Reps. Roy Klopfenstein (R-Haviland) and Darrell Kick (R-Loudonville), the bill designates the following federal agriculture days as state days in Ohio:

• March 21 of each year as “Agriculture day”;
• The week beginning on the Saturday before the last Saturday of each February through the last Saturday in February as “FFA Week”;
• October 12 of each year as “Farmer’s Day”;
• The week ending with the second Saturday of March as “4-H Week.”

Keep up with the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee’s activity on the Ohio Senate’s website at https://ohiosenate.gov/committees/agriculture-and-natural-resources. 

The Ag Law Harvest

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

Happy Fall Y’all! We are back with another monthly edition of The Ag Law Harvest. This month’s edition brings you an Ohio Supreme Court case that clarifies a party’s obligations under express indemnification provisions in a contract, an Ohio woman’s fight against a local zoning ordinance that sought to remove her pet ducks, and agricultural labor updates. 

Common Law Notice Requirements May No Longer Exist Under Express Indemnification. 
The Ohio Supreme Court recently made a significant decision regarding indemnification clauses in contracts. Indemnification is the right of one party to be fully reimbursed for payments they made on behalf of another party who should have made those payments. There are two types of indemnity: express and implied. Express indemnity is when a written contract explicitly states that one party will reimburse the other under certain circumstances. Implied indemnity is a common law principle where each party is responsible for their own wrongdoing, and the wrongdoer should reimburse the injured party.

In this case, Discovery Oil and Gas contracted with Wildcat Drilling, which included an express indemnification provision. Wildcat was supposed to indemnify Discovery for any fines related to pollution or contamination from drilling. When Wildcat violated Ohio law by using brine improperly, Discovery settled with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources for $50,000 without notifying Wildcat and requested reimbursement. Wildcat refused, arguing that Discovery didn’t follow Ohio common law, which requires notice before settling a claim.

The Ohio Supreme Court sided with Discovery, stating that the express clause in the contract indicated the parties’ intent to deviate from common law principles. The court clarified that notice requirements for indemnification are determined by the contract terms. Depending on the contract, parties may not need to provide notice before settling a claim and seeking reimbursement. This ruling emphasizes the importance of contract language in determining indemnification obligations.

Medina County Woman Has All Her Ducks in a Row. 
A Medina County woman is able to keep her pet ducks after a battle with the Village of Seville and an interpretation of its zoning ordinances. Ms. Carlson, the owner of the ducks at issue, fought to keep her pet ducks after being ordered to remove them from her property by Wadsworth Municipal Court. Ms. Carlson appealed the municipal court’s ruling, arguing that Seville’s zoning ordinance against “poultry and livestock” is unconstitutionally vague. The appellate court agreed with Ms. Carlson. The appellate court found that Seville’s ordinance against poultry focused on hens, roosters, coop hygiene, and the sale of poultry byproducts such as meat and eggs. The court held that an ordinary person would not be able to understand that keeping other birds, such as ducks, as companion animals would violate Seville’s ordinances. Therefore, Ms. Carlson could not be found to have committed an unclassified misdemeanor by owning pet ducks. However, had Ms. Carlson been keeping the ducks and selling their byproducts such as duck eggs and meat, there might have been a different outcome.  

Farm Labor Stabilization and Protection Pilot Program. 
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) has announced the opening of the Farm Labor Stabilization and Protection Pilot Program (“FLSP”). The FLSP will award up to $65 million in grant funding to provide support for agricultural employers to implement new hearty labor standards/procedures and update existing workplace infrastructure to help promote a healthy and safe work environment. The USDA states that the purpose of the FLSP program is “to improve food and agricultural supply chain resiliency by addressing challenges agricultural employers face with labor shortages and instability.” The FLSP has three goals: (1) drive U.S. economic recovery and safeguard domestic food supply by addressing current labor shortages in agriculture; (2) reduce irregular migration from Northern Central America through the expansion of regular pathways; (3) improve working conditions for all farmworkers. Qualified applicants can receive grants ranging from $25,000 – $2,000,000. The application window closes on November 28, 2023. For more information, view the USDA’s fact sheet on the FLSP. 

Department of Labor Publishes Proposed Rule to Amend H-2A Regulations. 
The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) Employment and Training Administration (“ETA”) has published a proposed rule titled “Improving Protections for Workers in Temporary Agricultural Employment in the United States.” The proposed rule seeks to amend several H-2A program regulations by: 

• Adding new protections for worker self-advocacy. 
• Clarifying when a termination is “for cause.” 
• Making foreign labor recruitment more transparent. 
• Making wages more predictable. 
• Improving workers’ access to safe transportation. 
• Enhancing enforcement to improve program integrity. 

Read more about the proposed rule by visiting the DOL’s news release. The comment period on the proposed rule ends November 14, 2023. 

​​​​​​​Department of Homeland Security Publishes Proposed Rule Amending H-2 Program.  The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) has published a proposed rule titled “Modernizing the H-2 Program Requirements, Oversight, and Worker Protections.” The DHS announced its intent to strengthen protections for temporary workers through the H-2A and H-2B worker programs by providing greater flexibility and protections for participating workers, and improving the programs’ efficiency. The proposed rule would: 

• Provide whistleblower protection to H-2A and H-2B workers who report their employers for program violations. 
• Extend grace periods for workers seeking new employment, preparing for departure from the United States, or seeking a change of immigration status. 
• Establish permanent H-2 portability, allowing employers to hire H-2 workers who are already lawfully in the United States while the employer’s H-2 petition for the worker is pending. 

The comment period for the proposed rule ends on November 20, 2023. 

John Deere and Farm Bureau Address Right-to-Repair

As farm machinery has become more complex and reliant on computer software, the right-to-repair issue has become a prominent issue in the farm community.  Farmers are sometimes prevented from repairing their own equipment because they do not have access to needed diagnostic tools or are otherwise barred due to embedded software.  Farmers have voiced their criticism of manufacturers as right-to-repair has become a prominent issue in the agricultural community.

In an effort to address the right-to-repair issue, the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) and John Deere recently entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in which Deere agrees to provide access to documentation, data and diagnostic tools used by the company’s authorized dealers.  This development was likely a response to pressure that Deere and other manufactures were under to allow right-to-repair.  New York recently passed a right-to-repair law and Senator Tester introduced right-to-repair legislation in the U.S. Senate earlier this year. 

Software User License

The issue of right-to-repair is related to a user’s license.  The term “license” has a specific meaning under the law.  Someone who holds a license for a product is allowed to use the product but does not own the product.  In 2016, Deere began using a user’s license for the software in its machines.  Essentially, when a customer would buy a machine from Deere, the buyer had ownership of the steel but did not own the software that makes the machine operate.    

Software licensing has its roots in 1980’s software.  The burgeoning consumer software industry initially sold its software to customers and retained no rights to the software.  These software developers began to see purchasers of their software reverse engineer the software and development slightly different software that resulted in the same functionality.  In essence, a person could buy the software, make a change to the software to potentially avoid copyright infringement, but end up with software that did the same thing as the originally purchased software.  This process essentially allowed for the stealing of intellectual property from the software developer, but the developers had little legal recourse.

To overcome this loss of intellectual property, software developers began selling a license to use the software.  The software license allowed the purchaser to use the software, but the software developer retained ownership.  The license agreement expressly prohibited reverse engineering or using the software in other ways that jeopardized the software developer’s intellectual property.  By keeping ownership,  software developers could take legal action against people who tried to copy and resell the software.

The software license worked reasonably well for many years.  The vast majority of software users were oblivious to the license agreement and continued using the software as they always had.  The licensing arrangement help protect the software developers’ intellectual property.  However, in the last twenty years or so, software began to be embedded in electronic devices blurring the lines between the software and the hardware. A new tractor seems to be as much a computer running software as it does a power unit pulling implements.  

Right-to-Repair

The integration of software into farm machines came to light in 2016 when John Deere implemented a software user license agreement to presumably protect its intellectual property.  Its licensing agreement clearly stated that reverse engineering or copying of the software is prohibited.  However, Deere seems to have taken it one step further.  Farmers and independent repair shops were prohibited from having the diagnostic tools and manuals required to make repairs.  This denial of diagnostic tools effectively made it impossible for farmers and independent mechanics to make repairs on some John Deere equipment.  Many people in the farm community expressed their concern about the license agreement and saw it as scheme to keep the repairs, and the fees from those repairs, all within the John Deere dealer network.  Farmers wanted to be able to repair their own equipment, or use other independent third parties, to potentially save money and to have more timely service, especially during busy times like planting and harvest.

Due to pressure from a combination of the new legislation in New York, the right-to-repair legislation introduced in the Senate and dissatisfaction expressed by farmers, John Deere likely felt it was best to make some concessions with farmers while keeping ownership of the software.  This speculation is supported by the fact that AFBF agreed to “refrain from introducing, promoting, or supporting federal or state “Right to Repair” legislation that imposes obligations beyond the commitments in this MOU.”  So, it seems AFBF agreed not to pursue right-to-repair legislation in exchange for Deere loosening its prohibitions of right-to-repair.

While it is impossible to foresee all the future implications for an agreement like the one between AFBF and Deere, it does seem that it is a reasonable compromise.  Farmers can now have access to diagnostic tools to allow for self-repairs while Deere keeps ownership of its software.  Critics argue the agreement does not go far enough and Deere still has too much control over self-repairs.  We will see over the next few years if the agreement is, in fact, a reasonable compromise.

Memorandum of Understanding

It is noteworthy that the agreement between AFBF and John Deere is memorialized within a Memorandum of Understanding.  For those not familiar with an MOU, there may be some curiosity as to its legal context.  MOUs are most often used at the beginning of a negotiation to ensure that both parties are starting with the same understanding of their current positions, to make clear what each party is seeking from the negotiation and that it is worthwhile for both parties to move forward.  Unlike a contract, an MOU is generally not legally enforceable.  Because the agreement is an MOU, neither AFBF nor Deere is legally bound to its terms.  Neither party has legal recourse if the other party does not honor its commitments as outlined in the MOU. If either party reneges on its commitments, the party at fault will likely receive criticism in the public opinion realm but will likely have no legal liability.

Conclusion

The John Deere software licensing issue is a good example of how new technology can require new strategies and concepts in the law.  Prior to the 1980’s, copyright law had worked just fine for books and movies but it did not work well for the new medium of software.  So, the concept of software licenses was developed to address the threats to the software industry. Twenty years later when the line between software and hardware began to blur, software licenses were again modified to protect the developer of the software.  In the case of John Deere, perhaps they went a bit too far in enforcing their licenses.  The threat of unfavorable legislation and criticism from customers probably caused John Deere to walk back their stance on prohibition of diagnostic tools to allow self-repairs.  Hopefully, the agreement between John Deere and AFBF has found a reasonable middle ground that benefits all parties.

The “letter of intent” for solar and wind energy development: considerations for landowners

Solar and wind energy development is thriving in Ohio, and most of that development will occur on leased farmland.  Programs in the newly enacted federal Inflation Reduction Act might amplify renewable energy development even more. The decision to lease land for wind and solar development is an important one for a farmland owner, and one that remains with a farm for decades.  It’s also a very controversial issue in Ohio today, with farmers and community residents lining up on both sides of the controversy.  For these reasons, when a landowner receives a “letter of intent” for wind or solar energy development, we recommend taking a careful course of action.  Here are a few considerations that might help.

Purpose and legal effect of a letter of intent.  Typically, a letter of intent for renewable energy development purposes is not a binding contract, but it might be.  The purposes of the letter of intent are usually to provide initial information about a potential solar lease and confirm a landowner’s interest in discussing the possibility of a solar lease.  Unless there is compensation or a similar benefit provided to the landowner and the letter states that it’s a binding contract, signing a letter of intent wouldn’t have the legal effect of committing the landowner to a solar lease.  But the actual language in the letter of intent would determine its legal effect, and it is possible that the letter would offer a payment and contain terms that bind a landowner to a leasing situation.

Attorney review is critical.  To ensure a clear understanding of the legal effect and terms of the letter of intent, a landowner should review the letter with an attorney.  An attorney can explain the significance of terms in the letter, which might include an “exclusivity” provision preventing the landowner from negotiating with any other solar developer for a certain period of time, “confidentiality” terms that prohibit a landowner from sharing information about the letter with anyone other than professional advisors, “assignment” terms that allow the other party to assign the rights to another company, and initial details about the proposed project and lease such as location, timeline, and payments.  Working through the letter with an attorney won’t require a great deal of time or cost but will remove uncertainties about the legal effect and terms of the letter of intent.

Negotiating an Option and Lease would be the next steps. If a landowner signs a letter of intent, the next steps will be to negotiate an Option and a Lease.  It’s typical for a letter of intent to summarize the major terms the developer intends to include in the Option and Lease, which can provide a helpful “heads up” on location, payments and length of the lease.  As with the letter of intent, including an attorney in the review and negotiation of the Option and Lease is a necessary practice for a landowner.  We also recommend a full consideration of other issues at this point, such as the effect on the farmland, farm business, family, taxes, estate plans, other legal interests, and neighbor relations. Read more in our “Farmland Owner’s Guide to Solar Leasing” and “Farmland Owner’s Solar Leasing Checklist”.

New laws in Ohio might prohibit the development.  A new law effective in October of 2021 gives counties in Ohio new powers to restrict or reject wind and solar facilities that are 50 MW or more in size.  A county can designate “restricted areas” where large-scale developments cannot locate and can reject a specific project when it’s presented to the county. The new law also allows citizens to organize a referendum on a restricted area designation and submit the designation to a public vote. Smaller facilities under 5-MW are not subject to the new law.  Several counties have acted on their new authorities under the law in response to community concerns and opposition to wind and solar facilities.  Community opposition and whether a county has or will prohibit large-scale wind and solar development are additional factors landowners should make when considering a letter of intent.  Learn more about these new laws in our Energy Law Library.

It’s okay to slow it down.  A common reaction to receiving a letter of intent is that the landowner must act quickly or could lose the opportunity.  Or perhaps the document itself states a deadline for responding.  A landowner shouldn’t let those fears prevent a thorough assessment of the letter of intent.  If an attorney can’t meet until after the deadline, for example, a landowner should consider contacting the development and advising that the letter is under review but meeting the deadline isn’t possible.  That’s a much preferred course of action to signing the letter without a review just to meet an actual or perceived deadline.

For more information about energy leases in Ohio, refer to our Energy Law Library on the Farm Office website at https://farmoffice.osu.edu/our-library/energy-law.

Landowner crop lease termination deadline is September 1

September 1 is fast approaching, and this year it’s an especially important date for landowners leasing cropland under an existing lease that doesn’t address when or how the lease terminates.  In those situations, September 1 is the new deadline established in Ohio law for a landowner to notify a tenant that the landowner wants to terminate the lease.  If the landowner does not provide notice by September 1, the lease continues for another lease term. 

This September 1 deadline only applies to verbal or written leases that don’t have a termination date or a deadline for giving notice of termination.  If a crop lease already includes a termination date or a deadline for giving notice of termination, those provisions are unchanged by the new law. The new September 1 termination date also only affects leases of land for agricultural crops.  It does not apply to leases for pasture, timber, farm buildings, horticultural buildings, or leases solely for equipment.

To meet the new legal requirements, a landowner must give the notice of termination in writing and deliver it to the tenant operator by hand, mail, fax, or email on or before September 1.  While the law does not specify what the termination must say, we recommend including the date of the notice, the identity of the lease property being terminated, and the date the lease terminates, which the law states will be the earlier of the end of harvest or December 31, unless the parties agree otherwise.

Tenant operators are not subject to the new September 1 termination deadline—the law applies only to the landowner.  Even so, it’s important for tenant operators to understand the new law because it protects a tenant if a landowner attempts to terminate a lease after September 1.  In those instances, the law allows the tenant to continue the lease for another term because the termination notice was late.

A lesson this new law teaches is the importance of having a written farm lease that includes termination provisions. The parties can agree in advance when the lease will terminate or can set a deadline for notifying the other party of the intent to terminate the lease.  Such terms provide certainty and reduce the risk of conflict and litigation over a “late” termination.

Read the new “termination of agricultural leases” law in Section 5301.71 of the Ohio Revised Code.

Ohio Farmland Leasing Update is August 10

Is it time to start thinking about your farmland lease for next year?  We think so!  There are new legal issues and updated economic information to consider for the upcoming crop year.  That’s why we’ve scheduled our next Ohio Farmland Leasing Update for Thursday, August 11 at 8 a.m.  Join the Farm Office team of Barry Ward, Robert Moore and Peggy Hall for an early morning webinar discussion of the latest economic and legal farmland leasing information for Ohio. 

Here are the topics we’ll cover:

• Ohio’s new statutory termination law for verbal farmland leases
• Using a Memorandum of Lease and other lease practice tips
• Economic outlook for Ohio row crops
• New Ohio cropland values and cash rents survey results
• Rental market outlook

There’s no cost to attend the Zoom webinar, but registration is necessary.  Visit https://go.osu.edu/farmlandleasingupdate for registration.  And if you’re already thinking about your next farmland lease, also be sure to use our farmland leasing resources on https://farmoffice.osu.edu.    

To arbitrate or not to arbitrate: that is the question

By: Jeffrey K. Lewis, Esq., Program Coordinator OSU Income Tax Schools & ANR Extension

One of the core principles of the American legal system is that people are free to enter into contracts and negotiate those terms as they see fit.  But sometimes the law prohibits certain rights from being “signed away.”  The interplay between state and federal law and the ability to contract freely can be a complex and overlapping web of regulations, laws, precedent, and even morals.  Recently, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled on a case that demonstrates the complex relationship between Ohio law and the ability of parties to negotiate certain terms within an oil and gas lease.     

The Background.  Ascent Resources-Utica, L.L.C. (“Defendant”) acquired leases to the oil and gas rights of farmland located in Jefferson County, Ohio allowing it to physically occupy the land which included the right to explore the land for oil and gas, construct wells, erect telephone lines, powerlines, and pipelines, and to build roads.  The leases also had a primary and secondary term language that specified that the leases would terminate after five years unless a well is producing oil or gas or unless Defendant had commenced drilling operations within 90 days of the expiration of the five-year term. 

After five years had passed, the owners of the farmland in Jefferson County (“Plaintiffs”) filed a lawsuit for declaratory judgment asking the Jefferson County Court of Common Pleas to find that the oil and gas leases had expired because of Defendant’s failure to produce oil or gas or to commence drilling within 90 days.  Defendant counterclaimed that the leases had not expired because it had obtained permits to drill wells on the land and had begun constructing those wells before the expiration of the leases.  Defendant also moved to stay the lawsuit, asserting that arbitration was the proper mechanism to determine whether the leases had expired, not a court. 

What is Arbitration and is it Legal?  Arbitration is a method of resolving disputes, outside of the court system, in which two contracting parties agree to settle a dispute using an independent, impartial third party (the “arbitrator”).  Arbitration usually involves presenting evidence and arguments to the arbitrator, who will then decide how the dispute should be settled.  Arbitration can be a quicker, less burdensome method of resolving a dispute. Because of this, parties to a contract will often agree to forgo their right to sue in a court of law, and instead, abide by any arbitration decision.   

Ohio law also recognizes the rights of parties to agree to use arbitration, rather than a court, to settle a dispute.  Ohio Revised Code § 2711.01(A) provides that “[a] provision in any written contract, except as provided in [§ 2711.01(B)], to settle by arbitration . . . shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, except upon grounds that exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”  What this means is that Ohio will enforce arbitration clauses contained within a contract, except in limited circumstances.  One of those limited circumstances arises in Ohio Revised Code § 2711.01(B).  § 2711.01(B)(1) provides that “[s]ections 2711.01 to 2711.16 . . . do not apply to controversies involving the title to or the possession of real estate . . .”  Because land and real estate are so precious, Ohio will not enforce an arbitration clause when the controversy involves the title to or possession of land or other real estate.  

To be or not to be?  After considering the above provisions of the Ohio Revised Code, the Jefferson County Court of Common Pleas denied Defendant’s request to stay the proceedings pending arbitration.  The Common Pleas Court concluded that Plaintiffs’ claims involved the title to or possession of land and therefore was exempt from arbitration under Ohio law.  However, the Seventh District Court of Appeals disagreed with the Jefferson County court.  The Seventh District reasoned that the controversy was not about title to land or possession of land, rather it was about the termination of a lease, and therefore should be subject to the arbitration provisions within the leases.   

The case eventually made its way to the Ohio Supreme Court, which was tasked with answering one single question: is an action seeking to determine that an oil and gas lease has expired by its own terms the type of controversy “involving the title to or the possession of real estate” so that the action is exempt from arbitration under Ohio Revised Code § 2711.01(B)(1)? 

The Ohio Supreme Court determined that yes, under Ohio law, an action seeking to determine whether an oil and gas lease has expired by its own terms is not subject to arbitration.  The Ohio Supreme Court reasoned that an oil and gas lease grants the lessee a property interest in the land and constitutes a title transaction because it affects title to real estate.  Additionally, the Ohio Supreme Court found that an oil and gas lease affects the possession of land because a lessee has a vested right to the possession of the land to the extent reasonably necessary to carry out the terms of the lease.  Lastly, the Ohio Supreme Court provided that if the conditions of the primary term or secondary term of an oil and gas lease are not met, then the lease terminates, and the property interest created by the oil and gas lease reverts back to the owner/lessor.  

In reaching its holding, the Ohio Supreme Court concluded that Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is exactly the type of controversy that involves the title to or the possession of real estate.  If Plaintiffs are successful, then it will quiet title to the farmland, remove the leases as encumbrances to the property, and restore the possession of the land to the Plaintiffs.  If Plaintiffs are unsuccessful, then title to the land will remain subject to the terms of the leases which affects the transferability of the land.  Additionally, the Ohio Supreme Court concluded that if Plaintiffs were unsuccessful then Defendant would have the continued right to possess and occupy the land.  Therefore, the Ohio Supreme Court found that Plaintiffs’ controversy regarding the termination of oil and gas leases is the type of controversy that is exempt from arbitration clauses under § 2711.01(B)(1). 

Conclusion.  Although Ohio recognizes the ability of parties to freely negotiate and enter into contracts, there are cases when the law will step in to override provisions of a contract.  The determination of title to and possession of real property is one of those instances.  Such a determination can have drastic and long-lasting effects on the property rights of individuals.  Therefore, as evidenced by this Ohio Supreme Court ruling, Ohio courts will not enforce an arbitration provision when the controversy is whether or not oil and gas leases have terminated.  To read more of the Ohio Supreme Court’s Opinion visit: https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2022/2022-Ohio-869.pdf.

Ohio legislature passes statutory farm lease termination and beginning farmer bills

Bills establishing new legal requirements for landowners who want to terminate a verbal or uncertain farm lease and income tax credits for sales of assets to beginning farmers now await Governor DeWine’s response after passing in the Ohio legislature this week.  Predictions are that the Governor will sign both measures.

Statutory termination requirements for farm leases – H.B. 397

Ohio joins nine other states in the Midwest with its enactment of a statutory requirement for terminating a crop lease that doesn’t address termination.  The legislation sponsored by Rep. Brian Stewart (R-Ashville) and Rep. Darrell Kick (R-Loudonville) aims to address uncertainty in farmland leases, providing protections for tenant operators from late terminations.

The bill states that in either a written or verbal farmland leasing situation where the agreement between the parties does not provide for a termination date or a method for giving notice of termination, a landlord who wants to terminate the lease must do so in writing by September 1.  The termination would be effective either upon completion of harvest or December 31, whichever is earlier.  Note that the bill applies only to leases that involve planting, growing, and harvesting of crops and does not apply to leases for pasture, timber, buildings, or equipment and does not apply to the tenant in a leasing agreement.

The beginning farmer bill – H.B. 95

A long time in the making, H.B. 95 is the result of a bi-partisan effort by Rep. Susan Manchester (R-Waynesfield) and Rep. Mary Lightbody (D-Westerville).  It authorizes two types of tax credits for “certified beginning farmer” situations. The bill caps the tax credits at $10 million, and sunsets credits at the end of the sixth calendar year after they become effective.

The first tax credit is a nonrefundable income tax credit for an individual or business that sells or rents CAUV qualifying farmland, livestock, facilities, buildings or machinery to a “certified beginning farmer.”  A late amendment in the Senate Ways and Means Committee reduced that credit to 3.99% of the sale price or gross rental income.  The bill requires a sale credit to be claimed in the year of the sale but spreads the credit amount for rental and share-rent arrangements over the first three years of the rental agreement.  It also allows a carry-forward of excess credit up to 7 years.  Note that equipment dealers and businesses that sell agricultural assets for profit are not eligible for the tax credit, and that an individual or business must apply to the Ohio Department of Agriculture for tax credit approval.

The second tax credit is a nonrefundable income tax credit for a “certified beginning farmer” for the cost of attending a financial management program.  The program must be certified by the Ohio Department of Agriculture, who must develop standards for program certification in consultation with Ohio State and Central State.  The farmer may carry the tax credit forward for up to three succeeding tax years.

Who is a certified beginning farmer?  The intent of the bill is to encourage asset transition to beginning farmers, and it establishes eligibility criteria for an individual to become “certified” as a beginning farmer by the Ohio Department of Agriculture.  One point of discussion for the bill was whether the beginning farmer credit would be available for family transfers.  Note that the eligibility requirements address this issue by requiring that there cannot be a business relationship between the beginning farmer and the owner of the asset. 

An individual can become certified as a beginning farmer if he or she:

• Intends to farm or has been farming for less than ten years in Ohio.
• Is not a partner, member, shareholder, or trustee with the owner of the agricultural assets the individual will rent or purchase.
• Has a household net worth under $800,000 in 2021 or as adjusted for inflation in future years.
• Provides the majority of day-to-day labor and management of the farm.
• Has adequate knowledge or farming experience in the type of farming involved.
• Submits projected earnings statements and demonstrates a profit potential.
• Demonstrates that farming will be a significant source of income.
• Participates in a financial management program approved by the Department of

Agriculture.

• Meets any other requirements the Ohio Department of Agriculture establishes through rulemaking.

We’ll provide further details about these new laws as they become effective.   Information on the statutory termination bill, H.B. 397, is here and information about the beginning farmer bill, H.B. 95, is here.  Note that provisions affecting other unrelated areas of law were added to both bills in the approval process.