Law

“Let the buyer beware” doctrine applies to real estate sales in Ohio

By: Peggy Kirk Hall, Attorney and Director, Agricultural & Resource Law Program

“Do your due diligence” is the lesson learned from a recent Ohio appeals court decision in a case alleging that a seller fraudulently induced a buyer in a real estate transaction. The Seventh District Court of Appeals rejected the buyer’s claim, stating that the doctrine of caveat emptor or “let the buyer beware” negated the fraudulent inducement argument because it placed a duty on the buyer to examine all “conditions open to observation.”  The court reasoned that the buyer could not blame the seller for fraud because the buyer had the duty to examine public records that provided accurate information about the property.

The case

The conflict arose from the purchase of 143 acres of land in Belmont County, negotiated by two attorneys representing the parties.  The buyer was present throughout the negotiations and read all of the e-mail correspondences between the two attorneys.  The parties agreed to a purchase agreement, the buyer ordered a title search for the property, and the purchase took place.  The buyer later learned, however, that a third party held an easement and right-of-way on the property.  The easement allowed surface activities such as locating pipelines and well pads and restricted some development activities by the buyer.

After learning of the easement, the buyer filed a lawsuit claiming fraudulent inducement by the seller.  A fraudulent inducement claim arises when someone uses a misrepresentation to persuade another to enter into an agreement.  The buyer argued that the seller was fraudulent because the seller’s attorney never mentioned the easement during the purchase negotiations. The trial court agreed and determined that through misstatements and concealment, the seller had committed fraud that was “aggravated, egregious and/or reckless.”

The Court of Appeals disagreed.  The court explained that, despite the seller’s actions, the doctrine of “let the buyer beware” obligated the buyer to investigate and examine “discoverable conditions” about the property.  The easement was discoverable, as it had been recorded in the county public records. Because the easement information was readily available and the buyer had the opportunity to investigate it, the buyer could not successfully claim fraudulent concealment, the court concluded. According to the court, the buyer could not justify reliance on the seller’s omissions about the easement when the easement itself was a public record that was available to the buyer.

What does this decision mean for property transactions?

We’re back to “do your due diligence.”  For property purchases, due diligence is the process of investigating and evaluating the property before finalizing the sale.  A purchase agreement should include adequate time for due diligence after initial terms are agreed upon.  During the due diligence period, a buyer can take a number of actions to evaluate whether or how to proceed with the purchase, such as:

  • Complete visual and physical inspections of the land and buildings.
  • Verify who holds ownership interests in the property.
  • Determine if there are any easements, deed restrictions, covenants, severed mineral rights, pipelines, leases or other types of legal interests and limitations.
  • Identify zoning and access regulations that apply to the property.
  • Investigate environmental issues.
  • Identify availability of water and utilities.

Additional inquiries might be necessary, depending on the type and intended use of the property.  Hiring an attorney and other professionals can ensure that due diligence is thorough and tailored to the type of property at issue.

The time and cost of due diligence might be painful, but the doctrine of “let the buyer beware” demands it.  As the Court of Appeals stated, “a seller of realty is not obligated to reveal all that he or she knows.  A duty falls upon the purchaser to make inquiry and examination.”

How Ohio’s Proposed Pesticide Rules Could Affect Teens Working on Farms

On April 9, 2025, the Ohio House of Representatives passed its version of the state’s biennial budget, also known as House Bill 96, which introduces substantial revisions to Ohio’s pesticide application laws. These updates aim to bring the state into closer alignment with current federal regulations and carry significant implications—particularly for family farms that involve youth workers. As the school year ends and more minors begin working regularly on farms, the timing of these proposed changes raises concerns about how they may limit the roles young people can legally perform—especially when it comes to pesticide-related tasks.

Changes on the Horizon?
One of the most notable changes is the proposed restriction that only licensed commercial or private pesticide applicators may “use” Restricted Use Pesticides (“RUPs”). This would eliminate the previous allowance for trained service persons, immediate family members, or employees to apply RUPs under the direct supervision of a licensed applicator.

Additionally, House Bill 96 expands the definition of “use” of RUPs to include not only the act of application but also:

  1. Pre-application activities such as mixing and loading;
  2. The application itself, performed by a licensed commercial or private applicator;
  3. Other pesticide-related tasks, including transporting or storing opened containers, cleaning equipment, and disposing of leftover pesticides, spray mixtures, rinse water, containers, or any materials containing pesticides.

The bill makes clear that no individual may use RUPs unless they are properly licensed under Ohio law, reinforcing the importance of formal certification for anyone involved in pesticide handling.

What Does this Mean for Youth on the Farm?
Under current Ohio law, immediate family members—including minors—are permitted to apply RUPs as long as they are under the direct supervision of a licensed applicator. For years, agricultural families have relied on this exemption to allow youth to assist with farm duties involving pesticide use. However, the proposed changes in House Bill 96 would eliminate this exception by requiring that anyone handling RUPs be individually licensed. Because Ohio law mandates that pesticide applicators be at least 18 years old, minors would no longer be permitted to perform any pesticide-related tasks, even under direct supervision. Of course, this provision is not just geared toward youth on the farm—it also affects employees and trained service persons who previously operated under a licensed applicator’s supervision. If the proposed changes go through, a violation of the law could result in significant civil penalties.

Given the proposed changes in House Bill 96, it’s an appropriate time to take a broader look at the full range of youth labor regulations that apply to farm work. While pesticide use is just one area impacted by legal restrictions, there are numerous federal and state laws that govern what tasks minors can perform, what equipment they can operate, and how many hours they can legally work—especially during the school year versus summer months. These rules can vary based on the age of the minor and their relationship to the farm owner. With regulatory changes potentially tightening in one area, it’s essential for farm families and employers to ensure they are in compliance across the board to avoid penalties and ensure safe, lawful participation of youth in agricultural work. Read more about employing youth on the farm here.

Next Steps
Farm families and employers should begin preparing for the upcoming changes to Ohio’s pesticide rules. While these changes aren’t law yet—they won’t take effect until the Governor signs the bill—they are needed to align Ohio’s regulations with federal law. If Ohio wants to keep its authority to enforce the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”), these updates are a forgone conclusion.

To review the specific pesticide-related provisions in House Bill 96, begin on page 903 of the bill text. Alternatively, for an overview of the proposed budget and potential changes, you can consult the summary prepared by the Ohio Legislative Service Commission.

New drone laws effective in Ohio

By: Peggy Kirk Hall, Attorney and Director, Agricultural & Resource Law Program, OSU Extension

Unidentified drones flying over property have raised many concerns recently, but new laws in Ohio may ease those concerns. The new laws aim to enhance safety, protect privacy, and align state laws with federal regulations for “unmanned aerial vehicles” (UAVs), or “drones.” Passed late last year as H.B. 77 and effective on April 9, 2025, the new laws amend Ohio’s aircraft safety laws to prohibit operating UAVs in certain ways and also address local government use and regulations for UAVs.

​Legal definition of UAV

A UAV, according to the new law, is commonly referred to as a drone and is  a vehicle that does not carry a human operator, is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the vehicle, uses aerodynamic forces to provide lift, can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely, and is either expendable or recoverable. The law clarifies that a satellite is not a UAV.

Prohibited drone operations

The law establishes four prohibited actions by UAV operators in Ohio and sets penalties for violating the prohibitions:

  1. Knowing endangerment.  A person shall not operate a UAV “on the land or water or in the air space over this state in a manner that knowingly endangers any person or property or purposely disregards the rights or safety of others.” A violation of this provision can result in a $500 fine and/or up to six months of imprisonment. ​
  2. Interference with law enforcement and emergency responders.  The law prohibits operating a drone in a way that disrupts, interrupts, or impairs the operations or activities of law enforcement, fire department, or emergency medical services.  Criminal misdemeanor or felony charges are possible, depending on whether the interference was committed knowingly or the result of recklessness.
  3. Operation over critical facilities.  Two new provisions apply to “critical facilities,” which includes hospitals that receive air ambulance services; military installations; commercial distribution centers; courts, jails, and prisons; and police stations, sheriff’s offices, state highway patrol stations, and premises controlled by the bureau of criminal investigation.  The law prohibits a person from operating a drone to photograph, record, or loiter over or near a critical facility in two situations.  The first situation is operating a drone with the purpose of tampering with or destroying the facility and the second is operating a drone to further another criminal offense involving harm to a person.  Violations of these laws can lead to criminal misdemeanor and felony charges, depending on the operator’s intent and whether the action is a repeated violation.
  4. Compliance with federal law.  The new law ties into federal law and regulations that require registration of UAVs and licensing for certain UAV operators.  Ohio law prohibits a person from operating a UAV in Ohio if those federal laws or FAA regulations would prohibit the operation, which allows the state to enforce the federal law requirements.

Local governments and drones

Another provision of the new law provides authority to municipalities, counties, townships, and park districts.  These local governments can now adopt local ordinances or regulations for UAVs in two situations: for hobby or recreational uses of drones above a park or other public property and for the use and operation of drones by the local government.

What do the new laws mean for agriculture?  The laws place new responsibilities on drone operators to use drones responsibly and for legitimate purposes while providing remedies for those whose safety or privacy are endangered by drone operations.  In those situations, a person should contact local law enforcement. Federal law requires registration and “Remote ID” tracking technology for UAVs, which can allow identification of the drone operator from an on-the-ground transmitter.  With the new laws, there are now legal options for pursuing enforcement against bad actors.  Local governments can also now enact additional laws to ensure safe drone operation in their public areas.

What the laws don’t do is authorize the “shooting down” of suspicious drones. It is a federal crime to shoot or intentionally harm a drone, even if the drone is flying over someone’s private property. Shooting a drone from the sky can also create safety risks and potential civil liability. Read more about options for dealing with suspicious drone activity in our  previous blog post.

Ohio Farm Resolution Services

Ohio has over 76,000 farms and 13 million acres of farmland.  In such a large and diverse industry, conflicts commonly arise that can lead to disputes, litigation, and appeals.  Ultimately, these conflicts can cause harmful effects that threaten the viability of Ohio agriculture.

The goal of Ohio Farm Resolution Services at The Ohio State University (OFRS) is to cultivate solutions to the conflicts that impact Ohio’s farms and farm families.  Established in October of 2023 with funding from the USDA Farm Service Agency’s Certified Mediation Program, OFRS serves Ohio agriculture with a three-pronged approach to helping resolve farm conflicts that will provide:

  1. Educational resources on Ohio farm conflict issues.
  2. Conflict resolution and consultation services by OSU Extension legal and farm management specialists.
  3. Formal mediation services by trained mediators.

What issues will we cover? The types of issues OFRS will address include:

  • Family communication
  • Farm transition planning
  • Business entities/ practices
  • Energy leases
  • Farm leases
  • Zoning
  • Land Use
  • Labor
  • Neighbor issues
  • Lender/creditor
  • Property disputes
  • Farmland drainage
  • Crops/Agronomics
  • USDA/ODA appeals
  • Estate disputes
  • Other farm related issues

If you have a farm conflict issue we can help you with now, please e-mail program director Robert Moore at moore.301@osu.edu.

Controlling the Spread

Palmer Amaranth, Waterhemp, Marestail, Giant Ragweed, Lambsquarters, Pigweed, Burcucumber, Foxtail, Pokeweed, and Velvetleaf are some of the problem weeds we face annually in Knox County.  The first six weeds have documented herbicide resistance in Ohio.  The weeds in bold print are on the noxious weed list which requires control.

Arguably the single most daunting task facing some of us this year may be stopping the spread of weeds such as Waterhemp and Palmer Amaranth.  Waterhemp and Palmer Amaranth are two devastating, invasive weeds now found throughout Knox County.  These weeds, like no other weeds we have ever experienced, can and will change the way we manage our farms today.  These weeds can impact both your herbicide program and your trait-based seed selection.

Populations of these species can explode in just a few years if not controlled.  Consider each female plant of these two species can produce 1 million seeds.  If only one plant survives this year, how many of these seeds will germinate next year?  It’s not impossible to see a scenario where one surviving plant can turn into a million or more new plants within a few years.

Table 1. shows the seed production capabilities and the expected seed survival rate of different weed species prevalent in Knox County.

Controlling the spread

A monumental undertaking facing some this year will be to stop the spread of these weeds.  The most common avenues for weed seeds to spread are:

  • Machinery – Seeds are easily spread by many types of farm machinery, especially combines and mowing equipment.
  • Manure – Animals consume weed seed via various feed additives (cottonseed hulls) and hay.  Seeds are then spread in the manure.
  • Humans – Humans can spread weed seed through recreational activities and by moving items from field to field (power company moving big wood pallets).
  • Birds and wildlife – often transport weed seeds through their manure or by seeds in their coat.
  • Water – Heavy rains resulting in flooding can move weed seed to downstream fields.

Over the last three years I have personally seen evidence of weed seed movement throughout Knox County by each of these methods.

Invasive weeds pose significant risks to our farms.  Effective weed control programs and preventing the spread of these weeds is critically important.  These plants can have wide-ranging impacts on our farms for years to come.  Preventing these weeds from producing seed and/or removing or killing these plants before they produce seed is best way to control the spread.

 

BOI is Back!

Yes, you read that right—the Beneficial Ownership Information (“BOI”) reporting requirements under the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) are once again in effect. On February 17, 2025, a federal judge lifted the stay he had issued on January 7 in Smith v. U.S. Department of Treasury, which had temporarily halted the Government from enforcing BOI reporting requirements nationwide. This recent ruling eliminates all nationwide barriers that had been hindering the enforcement of the CTA. As a result, millions of businesses must now comply with BOI reporting requirements or face the risk of civil and/or criminal penalties.

Updated Deadlines
On February 18, 2025, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) issued a notice outlining the following key updates:

  1. Most reporting companies, unless subject to a later deadline (such as disaster relief extensions), now have until March 21, 2025, to submit their initial, updated, or corrected BOI report to FinCEN.
  2. If FinCEN determines that additional time is needed for compliance, it will issue another notice before the March 21, 2025, deadline with any further changes.
  3. The named plaintiffs in National Small Business United v. Yellen are still not required to report their BOI to FinCEN at this time.

A Quick Recap: What is the Corporate Transparency Act? 
Enacted in 2021, the CTA is a federal law designed to combat financial crimes like money laundering, tax evasion, and fraud by enhancing business ownership transparency. It mandates that certain domestic and foreign entities disclose their beneficial owners—individuals who ultimately own or control the company—to FinCEN.

Who Must File Beneficial Ownership Information?
Entities designated as “reporting companies” must submit their BOI to FinCEN by March 21. This includes corporations, limited liability companies (“LLCs”), and similar entities registered with their state’s Secretary of State or an equivalent authority to conduct business. However, certain entities are exempt from BOI reporting requirements, including:  Continue reading BOI is Back! →

Corporate Transparency Act Whiplash: Reporting Requirements Still on Hold

Corporate Transparency Act picture. A recap of the Texas Top Cop Shop case.
In the Texas Top Cop Shop case, a US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a nationwide injunction against the enforcement of the CTA and its beneficial ownership BOI reporting requirements. However, the Government appealed that decision, and a motions panel of the Fifth Circuit Court stayed the injunction, essentially reinstating the reporting requirements of the CTA. Then, three days later, a merits panel of the Fifth Circuit reversed course and vacated the stay, effectively reinstating the nationwide injunction. The Government then applied to the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) for a stay of the nationwide injunction. SCOTUS did grant the Government’s application for a stay and has lifted the nationwide injunction against the CTA. However, the story does not end there.

The CTA saga continues.
Earlier this month, the saga that is the CTA took another turn when a US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a nationwide stay on the CTA’s Reporting Requirements in a case separate from Texas Top Cop Shop. In Smith v. U.S. Department of Treasury, the court exercised its authority under 5 U.S.C. § 705 and stayed the effective date of the Reporting Rule of the CTA while the lawsuit remains pending. As a result, while there is no nationwide injunction preventing enforcement of the CTA, the Reporting Rule’s implementation is still temporarily on hold thanks to the stay in the Smith case.

What is the difference between a stay and an injunction?
Stays and injunctions are similar in that both can effectively prevent certain actions before their legality is fully resolved. However, they achieve this outcome in distinct ways. An injunction is directed at a specific party, with the court ordering them to either take or refrain from taking specific actions. While a stay can be considered a “type of injunction,” it operates differently. A stay does not directly target a party’s actions; instead, it temporarily suspends the authority that allows the action, without directly dictating anyone’s behavior.

While both an injunction and a stay effectively achieve the same goal, there are important distinctions between them. For instance, obtaining an injunction against a party is generally more challenging than securing a stay while a lawsuit is ongoing. This is because an injunction requires the court to actively direct a party’s actions, whereas a stay simply preserves the status quo until the case is resolved.

Where are we now?
The Government has yet to appeal the issuance of the stay in the Smith case, but the window for filing an appeal has not yet closed. It will be interesting to see how the Fifth Circuit and/or SCOTUS handles the nationwide stay as opposed to the nationwide injunction.

In summary, the latest chapter of the CTA saga confirms that businesses nationwide are not required to file BOI reports. However, businesses are still permitted to voluntarily submit their BOI reports to the US Department of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”).

Several lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the CTA remain pending across the country, along with reintroduced legislation aiming to repeal the CTA entirely. It’s clear that the CTA story is far from over, and we will continue to keep you informed on the latest developments.

Winter Application of Manure in Ohio

With the colder weather, some livestock producers will be applying manure on frozen ground. Here are some things to keep in mind. For the article below, frozen ground would be soil that you cannot inject the manure into or cannot conduct tillage within 24 hours to incorporate the manure.

Permitted farms are not allowed to apply manure in the winter unless it is an extreme emergency, and then movement to other suitable storage is usually the selected alternative. Several commercial manure applicators have established manure storage ponds in recent years to help address this issue.

In the Grand Lake St Marys (GLSM)watershed, the winter manure application ban from December 15th to March 1st is still in effect. Thus, no manure application would normally be allowed in this time period.

For producers in the Western Lake Erie Basin (WLEB) watershed, the House Bill 1 rules established in 2016 are still in effect.

The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Code 590 was revised in 2020 and now applies statewide in Ohio (except to GLSM & WEBL).  It states the surface application of manure on frozen and snow-covered soil is not acceptable unless it is an emergency. An emergency exists as a temporary situation due to unforeseen causes and after all other options have been exhausted. In this situation only limited quantities of liquid manure shall be applied to address manure storage limitations until non frozen soils are available for manure application. The Ohio Department of Agriculture will only enforce NRCS 590 in counties outside of GLSM and WELB if there is a manure discharge from the field. If a citation is issued for a discharge, it will be based on the 590 standards.

All applications of liquid manure to frozen and snow-covered soils must be documented in the producers’ records and must be applied in accordance to ALL the following criteria:

• The rate of application shall not exceed the lesser of 5,000 gallons/acre or P removal for the next crop.

• Applications are to be made on land with at least 90% surface residue cover (cover crop, good quality hay or pasture field, all corn grain residue remaining after harvest, all wheat residue cover remaining after harvest).

• Manure shall not be applied on more than 20 contiguous acres. Contiguous areas for application are to be separated by a break of at least 200 feet.

• Apply manure to areas of the field with the lowest risk of nutrient transport such as areas furthest from streams, ditches, waterways, with the least amount of slope.

• Application setback distance must be a minimum of 200 feet from grassed waterways, surface drainage ditches, streams, surface inlets, water bodies and 300 feet minimum from all wells, springs and public surface drinking water intakes. This distance may need to be further increased due to local conditions.

• For fields exceeding 6% slope manure shall be applied in alternating strips 60 to 200 feet wide generally on the contour, or in the case of contour strips on the alternating strips.

For farmers with solid manure, stockpiling could be an option. There are two different types of stockpiles: Short term and long term.

The short-term stockpile information can be found in NRCS FOTG 318 Short Term Storage of Animal Waste and Byproducts Standard (“NRCS 318”). Essentially, short term stockpile is a pile of solid manure that is being kept temporarily in one or more locations. It is considered a temporary stockpile as long as the pile is kept at the location for no more than 180 days and stockpiled in the field where the manure shall be applied. Setback distances listed in NRCS 318 should be followed to prevent discharge to waters of the state. There are multiple recommendations listed in NRCS 318 that speaks to location, timing, and preventative measures that should be taken while stockpiling the manure short term.

The long-term stockpile information can be found in NRCS FOTG 313 Waste Storage Facility Standard (“NRCS 313”). Long term stockpile is directly related to solid manure being piled and kept at a facility for longer than 180 days at a permanent location. It is recommended that all permanent long term storage stockpiles should be following the guidelines in NRCS 313 with the utilization of a stacking facility and the structural designs of fabricated structures. A stacking facility can be open, covered or roofed, but specific parameters should be in place to prevent manure runoff from the site.  These recommendations are listed in the NRCS 313.

Regardless of your county, it’s probably best to check with your local Soil and Water Conservation District office before considering winter manure application in Ohio. The rules have changed, and you should become aware of those that affect your operation.

Property owners and suspicious drone activity: what laws apply?

By: Peggy Kirk Hall, Attorney and Director, Agricultural & Resource Law Program

Drones, or more accurately named Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), have helped provide new methods of pesticide applications and agronomic data collection to assist farmers with productivity and efficiency. Yet the possibility of unknown drones flying over a farm property can cause concerns.  Recent conversations and sightings of drones in rural areas have producers raising questions such as “what can I do about suspicious drone activity” and “can I shoot down a drone over my property?”  Federal and state laws provide answers to these questions. Here are several points farmers need to know about dealing with UAVs traveling over their properties.

1.  Shooting a drone is a crime under federal and state laws.  Federal law prohibits a person from intentionally harming UAVs and other aircraft.  It is a federal felony to willfully “damage, destroy, disable, or wreck any aircraft,” and the federal government has prosecuted persons for doing so.  The potential punishment can be severe: a fine of up to $250,000 and twenty years of imprisonment.  Ohio law also establishes a crime for “endangering aircraft.”  A person who knowingly discharges a firearm, air gun, or spring-operated gun at or toward any aircraft can be subject to misdemeanor or felony charges, fines, and imprisonment, depending upon the risk of harm resulting from the endangerment.

2. Shooting a drone can create safety risks and potential civil liability.  The Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) and other aviation professionals warn against the unintended consequences of injuring an airborne drone.  Once disabled, a UAV is no longer under the control of an operator and will eventually crash.  Some compare an injured drone to a “missile” that can harm people, animals, and property upon impact. A recent case in Florida illustrates this danger, with a child suffering serious harm when a drone crashed and struck him.  A person who intentionally harms a drone not only creates this safety risk, but also opens up the possibility of being liable for injuries caused by the drone or its debris. Additionally, the owner of the drone may seek compensation for the loss of the aircraft. Continue reading Property owners and suspicious drone activity: what laws apply? →