Thursday, September 10, 2020
Ag Law and Tax in the Courtroom
In today’s post, I take a look at some recent court cases involving agricultural producers and rural landowners.
The next installment of “ag in the courtroom” – it’s the topic of today’s post.
Solar “Farm” Not a Nuisance
Yates v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, No. 6:17-cv-1819-AA, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160799 (D. Or. Sept. 20, 2019); Yates v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, No. 6:17-cv-01819-AA, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65949 (D. Or. Apr. 14, 2020)
A nuisance is an invasion of an individual's interest in the use and enjoyment of land rather than an interference with the exclusive possession or ownership of the land. Nuisance law prohibits land uses that unreasonably and substantially interfere with another individual's quiet use and enjoyment of property. The doctrine is based on two interrelated concepts: (1) landowners have the right to use and enjoy property free of unreasonable interferences by others; and (2) landowners must use property so as not to injure adjacent owners.
The two primary issues at stake in any agricultural nuisance dispute are whether the use alleged to be a nuisance is reasonable for the area and whether the use alleged to be a nuisance substantially interferes with the use and enjoyment of neighboring land. These concepts played out in a case last year involving the construction of a “solar farm” in Oregon.
In the Oregon case, the plaintiff owned land zoned as “Exclusive Farm Use.” The plaintiff alleged that construction of a 12-acre collection of solar panels (solar array) built on an adjacent property constituted a nuisance by interfering with her use and enjoyment of her property. The plaintiff also claimed that the construction during the summer of 2017 caused flooding on her property. The plaintiff’s suit was against the adjacent landowner; a company that held a conditional use permit for the solar array; and the construction company. The plaintiff alleged that all three defendants were responsible for the nuisance and trespass claims. The trial court granted summary judgment to all three defendants, finding that the plaintiff failed to offer any material evidence to establish either her nuisance or trespass claim. The court held that the defendant landowner did not engage in any activity constituting a nuisance or trespass. Landowners are generally not responsible for nuisances occurring after the execution of the lease, unless the landowner knew the activity being carried on would involve an unreasonable risk causing the nuisance or had control over the activities on the land. The trial court also noted that merely because the solar company obtained the permit that ultimately allowed construction to happen did not show they had any control over the construction workers’ actions. As for the actions of the construction company, the trial court held the plaintiff failed to allege evidence of an unreasonable interference with her private use or enjoyment of her land. Although the plaintiff complained of increased traffic and leftover debris, she was unable to establish that she had to adjust any daily habits or the manner in which she enjoyed her property as a result of the construction company’s conduct. The plaintiff alleged that a ditch built between the array and her property caused flooding on her property. However, the trial court noted the plaintiff could not show that the defendant construction company built the ditch or that the ditch directly diverted water onto her property.
In a later action solely against the county, the trial court granted the county’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claims of negligence per se and procedural due process. The trial court determined that the county did not violate state law (a requirement for a nuisance per se) because state law didn’t require the county to provide actual notice to the plaintiff of its permitting decision, but merely an opportunity to appeal. The appellate court also determined that the setback requirement of state law was complied with and that the waster runoff or flooding allegedly caused by the ditch did not constitute a trespass by water.
Recreational Use Statute Provides Landowner Protection
Nolan v. Fishman, 218 A.3d 1034 (Vt. 2019)
Many states have what is known as a recreational use statute. Under such a statute, an owner or occupier owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for recreational purposes, or to give any warning of dangerous conditions, uses, structures, or activities to persons entering the premises for such recreational purposes. Similarly, if an owner, directly or indirectly, invites or permits any person without charge to use the property for recreational purposes, the owner does not extend any assurance the premises are safe for any purpose, confer the status of licensee or invitee on the person using the property, or assume responsibility or incur liability for any injury to persons or property caused by any act or omission of persons who are on the property. But, if injury to recreational users is caused by the willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity, the protection of the statute is lost. Likewise, if the owner imposes a charge on the user of the property, the liability protection is lost under many state provisions. In a 2019 case, the Vermont recreational use statute was at issue.
The facts of the Vermont case revealed that the plaintiff is the administrator of the estate of a three-year-old who drowned in a brook on the defendants’ property. The defendants are the parents of the owners of the daycare facility where the decedent had been attending when the accident occurred. The defendants’ land was connected to the daycare property, and the daycare would regularly use a small area of the defendants’ land to access a brook beach and used the defendants’ land for various outdoor activities. The defendants did not profit from the daycare and were not involved in any of the daycare’s business activities. The defendant’s land was not posted, and they had always held it open to the public for recreational use.
The plaintiff sued the defendants alleging their negligence was the direct and proximate cause of the incident. The state recreational use law encourages owners to make their land and water available to the public for no consideration for recreational uses without increasing liability potential for the owner. Under the statute, a recreational user is treated as an adult trespasser, meaning that the landowner must only avoid willfully or wantonly injuring a recreational entrant.
The trial court found that the activities engaged in by the daycare on defendants’ land were both recreational and educational, therefore qualifying as a recreational use. However, the trial court dismissed the defendant’s motion for summary judgment because questions remained as to whether the defendants’ property was open and undeveloped land that qualified for protection under the statute. On appeal, the appellate court reversed the trial court and held that the statute applied. The appellate court held that the daycare’s use of the defendants’ property was without consideration, qualified as a recreational use, and that the land was open and undeveloped - the general public was freely permitted to use defendants’ land, along with the daycare. Although the defendants had placed a sandbox and brook bridge on their land, the appellate court noted that the legislature had expressly stated that the presence of such objects on land would not, by itself, preclude land from being open and undeveloped. Therefore, the defendants were covered under the recreational use statute.
Tract Properly Zoned as “Residential.”
Miller v. Scott County Board of Review, No. 19-1038, 2020 Iowa App. LEXIS 436 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2020)
The rural-urban fringe provides its own unique set of legal issues. One of those, is an attempt by landowners who aren’t really farmers to qualify their small tracts as “agriculture” for purposes of achieving a lower property tax assessment. The issue came up recently in an Iowa case.
The plaintiff, a computer services consultant, bought a 10.2-acre tract in 2008. It consisted of approximately two acres of a home and improvements; five acres of deep mud/bog; and 3.6 acres of cropland. The cropland is in a 100-year floodplain. From 2009-2011 the plaintiff grew hay on the cropland, and in 2012 and 2013 he grew corn on it. No crops were grown in 2014 due to weather, and in 2015 he grew corn and pumpkins. He challenged his 2015 property tax assessment and the 2017 assessment as inequitable and on the basis that it misclassified the property as “residential” rather than “agricultural.”
The county zoning board denied his petition and he appealed to the local trial court. At a trial court hearing the county’s assessor noted that the property had multiple uses, but that the plaintiff’s farming operation was “a secondary use.” The county did adjust the valuation downward by 16 percent and granted a “slough bill” exemption for the 2017 tax year. However, the trial court upheld the county’s designation of the property as “residential” on the basis that the plaintiff was a hobby farmer. As such, the trial court determined that the plaintiff’s property taxes should be based on a valuation amount $100,000 greater than the plaintiff desired.
On appeal, the appellate court affirmed, noting that the burden was on the plaintiff to establish the predominant agricultural use of the property. The court agreed with the trial court’s findings that the ag use of the property had never been profitable, and that if it were sold it would be marketed as a residential property rather than a farm property. Indeed, the plaintiff purchased the property as a residential property, and it is surrounded by residential housing. In addition, the largest valued asset on the property is the residence. The plaintiff also testified that he benefited from tax savings as a result of the cropping activities on his tract. He also testified to spending $90,000 for ag equipment and $55,000 to construct a barn but had farm income never exceeding $1,200 annually. That’s a classic “hobby farm” activity.
The legal issues involving rural landowners keep rolling in. It’s always best to have a well-trained ag lawyer at the ready when needed.