Authors: Le Chen, Christopher N. Boyer, and S. Aaron Smith &#8211; University of Tennessee 



Ad hoc payments have been used in times of disaster or unforeseen market forces to help producers. Historically, these payments were relatively small compared to the payments received by producers through the Farm Bill safety net, but recently ad hoc payments have been at record high levels. There have been several Southern Ag Today articles discussing a variety of topics about ad hoc payments such as the structures and the assistance they provide (<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/is-more-bridge-assistance-really-needed/">Link</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/11/20/disaster-assistance-for-2025-is-it-coming-or-not/">Link</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/05/22/much-needed-producer-assistance-in-the-house-reconciliation-bill/">Link</a>). These payments are in addition to the Farm Bill safety net programs, Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC), that have primarily existed to stabilize farm income from various shocks.&nbsp;&nbsp;Both types of programs are designed to support farm income and reduce financial stress. But do they actually help farmers stay current on their loans — and are they equally effective? A new study published in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.emerald.com/afr/article-abstract/86/3/423/1360610/Ad-hoc-and-Farm-Bill-payments-impact-on-non-real?redirectedFrom=fulltext">Agricultural Finance Review</a>&nbsp;provides an analysis to jointly evaluate ad hoc payments (MFP and CFAP) and farm bill support programs (ARC and PLC) using actual payment timing and amounts.



What We Found



Using FSA payment data from 2015 to 2022, we examined how each payment type affected two key indicators of farm financial stress: total non-real estate farm debt and loan delinquency rates — both short-term (30–89 days past due) and longer-term (90 or more days past due). The results reveal important differences between programs:



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>ARC payments were associated with significant reductions in short-term loan delinquencies (30–89 days past due) and also increased total operating debt — suggesting that ARC payments improved farm liquidity and helped producers service their short-term obligations;</li>



<li>PLC payments reduced longer-term delinquencies (90 or more days past due) — indicating that PLC provides a more sustained form of financial support that helps producers avoid falling seriously behind on loans;</li>



<li>CFAP payments — the emergency COVID-19 assistance program — also significantly reduced short-term delinquencies, suggesting emergency payments can provide effective near-term financial relief when deployed quickly; and</li>



<li>MFP payments — the trade war relief program — actually increased total farm debt without reducing delinquencies, suggesting that MFP was less effective at alleviating financial stress and may have encouraged borrowing rather than debt repayment.</li>
</ul>



What This Means for Farm Policy



Not all government payments are created equal when it comes to reducing farm financial stress. Farm Bill safety net programs show evidence of reducing loan delinquencies while the study finds less evidence with ad hoc emergency programs. These findings are directly relevant to ongoing Farm Bill and agricultural policy discussions in 2026. With ARC and PLC recently reauthorized through the One Big Beautiful Bill with an additional 30 million base acres allocated nationwide, these payments are expected to provide more assistance in the future. These Farm Bill safety net programs appear to function as intended: providing income support that translates into improved loan performance and farm financial stability. As policymakers consider the future ad hoc payments (<a href="https://www.marketwatch.com/story/farmers-are-already-set-for-a-55-billion-payday-why-does-washington-want-to-give-them-even-more-b81b3f09">Link</a>), these results are important when thinking about the intended purpose, design, and potential impacts of these ad hoc payments.&nbsp;



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



Recommended citation format: Chen, Le, Christopher N. Boyer, and S. Aaron Smith. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/09/01/ad-hoc-and-farm-bill-payments-can-these-payments-alleviate-financial-stress/">Ad hoc and Farm Bill payments – Can these payments alleviate financial stress?</a>&#8220; Southern Ag Today 6(36.5). September 4, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/09/01/ad-hoc-and-farm-bill-payments-can-these-payments-alleviate-financial-stress/">Permalink</a>

Ad hoc and Farm Bill payments – Can these payments alleviate financial stress?

Authors: Chris Boyer and Aaron Smith &#8211; University of Tennessee&nbsp;



Feral hogs are one of the most destructive and costly wildlife threats facing American agriculture. Across the United States, feral swine populations have exploded from 18 states in 1982 to around 30 states in 2025, with population continuing to rise in many of those locations. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) publishes county level population maps from 1982 to 2025 (<a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/operational-wildlife-activities/feral-swine/distribution">USDA APHIS 2026</a>). Figure 1 shows the USDA APHIS map for 2025 county level feral swine populations.



Figure 1. USDA APHIS map for county level feral swine populations



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1439" height="1112" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.36.4-1.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-44717" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.36.4-1.jpg 1439w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.36.4-1-1024x791.jpg 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.36.4-1-768x593.jpg 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1439px) 100vw, 1439px" /></figure>



The damage they leave behind is staggering. The USDA estimates feral swine cause $2.5 billion in damage each year, but some estimate the annual damages to be nearly $3.4 billion (<a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/national-wildlife-programs/nwrc/research-areas/feral-swine">Link</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12713719/">link</a>). Agriculture, mostly crops, are estimated to account for the $800 million of these damage (<a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/national-wildlife-programs/nwrc/research-areas/feral-swine">Link</a>). Beyond crops, feral hogs spread disease to livestock, damage farm infrastructure like fences and roads needed for agricultural production, destroy recreational parks, and cause extensive environmental damage to wildlife habitats, water quality, and plant ecosystems.



The 2018 Farm Bill established the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/feral-swine-eradication-and-control-pilot-program">Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program</a>&nbsp;(FSCP), a $75 million initiative over a five-year period, to respond to the damage caused by feral swine to agriculture, property, ecosystems, and human and animal health. The program was implemented beginning in 2020 across select counties in ten states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Texas). The program was a partnership between USDA&#8217;s Natural Resources Conservation Service, which focused on restoring lands damaged by feral hogs, and USDA&#8217;s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, which focused on removing feral hogs. Producers and landowners in participating counties were also eligible for grant funding to support hog control efforts. A one-year extension provided additional funding through Fiscal Year 2024. A full report of the projects implemented during this period is found online (<a href="chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https:/www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2025-12/usda-feral-swine-eradication-control-pilot-pgm-final-report.pdf">Link</a>).



In July 2025, the One Bill Beautiful Bill (<a href="https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/23159-war-on-feral-swine-gets-fresh-cash-infusion-from-trump-megabill">link</a>) reinstated the FSCP allocating $105 million through fiscal year 2029. Currently,&nbsp;<a href="file:///C:/Users/ssmit263/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/Content.Outlook/WADHKGUH/making%20available%20$35%20million%20for%20partnerships%20to%20respond%20to%20the%20threat%20feral%20swine%20pose%20to%20American%20agriculture,%20landscapes%20and%20human%20and%20livestock%20health,%20part%20of%20a%20broader%20$105%20million%20investment%20for%20the%20Feral%20Swine%20Eradication%20and%20Control%20Pilot%20Program.">USDA is accepting applications for grant funding for partners in: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.</a>USDA have expanded the program from the original 10 states to include California, Hawaii, Missouri, and Tennessee. Partners selected to participate in the FSCP will provide landowner assistance for restoration and on-farm trapping efforts and provide related services, like training. The USDA is currently making available $35 million for grant-funded projects. Applications for these grants are open until 11:59 ET on September 21, 2026. For more information about funding opportunity and to apply, visit the notice of funding on&nbsp;<a href="https://simpler.grants.gov/opportunity/32617965-5981-4f6d-904a-6856ed48769a">Grants.gov</a>.&nbsp;&nbsp;



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



Recommended citation format: Boyer, Chris, and Aaron Smith. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/09/01/feral-swine-eradication-and-control-pilot-program-grant-applications/">Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program Grant Applications.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(36.4). September 3, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/09/01/feral-swine-eradication-and-control-pilot-program-grant-applications/">Permalink</a>

Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program Grant Applications

Recent bullishness in corn and soybean futures has been driven by a tightening balance sheet in both crops. Demand has expanded, and weather in key growing areas has trimmed supply. That weather is now showing up in the USDA crop condition ratings (USDA-NASS, 2026), and the Pro Farmer Crop Tour came in well below USDA on corn (Pro Farmer, 2026), which has set off a good deal of online debate about yield estimation.



August is the first WASDE of the year in which USDA revises yields using survey data rather than trend, and it is where the largest yield revisions of the season cluster (Gardner, 2026). Those revisions do not stop in August: since 2010, the final corn yield has differed from the August estimate by an average of 3.8 bushels, landing below it in 11 of 16 years, and soybeans have differed by 1.5 bushels. In the August WASDE (USDA-WAOB, 2026), USDA cut corn yield expectations by 2.3 bushels to 180.7 bushels per acre and soybean yields by 0.3 bushels to 52.7 bushels per acre.



Meanwhile, the Pro Farmer Crop Tour, which samples fields across Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and South Dakota, estimated corn at 173.2 bushels per acre and soybeans at 53.3 bushels per acre. That puts the Tour 7.5 bushels under USDA on corn and 0.6 bushels over USDA on soybeans. Those seven states account for roughly two-thirds of U.S. corn and soybean production, and the Tour does not sample the rest, so the national figure carries an editorial judgment for the remaining third of the crop.



While the online discussion has focused on the size of that corn gap, the historical record suggests it means less than it appears. Figure 1 shows the average difference between the Pro Farmer Crop Tour estimate and four USDA yield numbers from 2016 through 2025: the August, September, and October WASDE, and the final yield. On corn, the Tour sits below all four, and the gap narrows at every step, from 3.5 bushels against the August number to 2.3 bushels against the final. USDA moves toward the Tour as the season progresses, but never all the way. On soybeans, the same progression appears at a far smaller scale, running from 0.1 bushels below the August number to 0.4 bushels above the final.



Figure 2 shows how far apart the two yield estimates sit as the season progresses. Crop years from 2016 through 2025 are split into two groups based on how far the Pro Farmer estimate landed from the August WASDE. Blue marks the years the two started close together, red the years they started far apart. The pattern is the same in both crops. Wherever the two estimates start, they end up in a similar place by October. On corn, the gap narrows from 5.2 bushels to 2.8 in the years that started far apart, while the years that started close widen from 2.0 to 2.8. The two groups land on the same number. On soybeans, they go further and trade places entirely, with the wide years closing from 1.6 to 0.6 and the close years opening from 0.6 to 1.4.



The practical point is that the size of the August disagreement does not tell you much about what follows. A loud year and a quiet year arrive at about the same distance by October. That is worth keeping in mind this fall, because the 7.5 bushel corn gap between the Tour and the August WASDE is the widest in this sample, and the history here does not support reading that width as a forecast of how far USDA has to move.



The Crop Tour is better read as direction than level. It has come in below the August WASDE on corn in nine of the last ten years by an average of 3.5 bushels, so this year&#8217;s 7.5 bushel gap is closer to four bushels of real news, and USDA&#8217;s own August number has been the more accurate of the two against the final. On soybeans, there is no yield story at all, since the Tour landed slightly above USDA. The September Crop Production report is the first chance for USDA to move with new survey data behind it. Producers pricing into this rally should know that part of it rests on an estimate history says overstates the corn shortfall.



Figure 1. Average Pro Farmer Crop Tour August yield estimate minus the USDA yield, 2016 through 2025, measured against the August, September, and October WASDE and the final yield. Negative values indicate the Crop Tour was lower. The October average excludes the 2025 crop year, when the Crop Production and WASDE reports were canceled during the federal government shutdown.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1950" height="1320" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.36.3-1-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44711" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.36.3-1-1.png 1950w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.36.3-1-1-767x519.png 767w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.36.3-1-1-1024x693.png 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.36.3-1-1-1536x1040.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1950px) 100vw, 1950px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: Pro Farmer; USDA WASDE archive (ESMIS) and USDA NASS.</figcaption></figure>



Figure 2. Average absolute difference between USDA&#8217;s in-season yield estimate and the Pro Farmer Crop Tour&#8217;s August estimate, with crop years split at the median August difference. Complete August, September, and October years only, nine per crop.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1950" height="1440" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.36.3-2-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44712" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.36.3-2-1.png 1950w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.36.3-2-1-1024x756.png 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.36.3-2-1-768x567.png 768w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.36.3-2-1-1536x1134.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1950px) 100vw, 1950px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: Pro Farmer; USDA WASDE archive (ESMIS) and USDA NASS.</figcaption></figure>



References



Gardner, Grant. “July 2026 WASDE: Acreage Moves in July, Yields Move in August.” Southern Ag Today, July 15, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/07/15/july-2026-wasde-acreage-moves-in-july-yields-move-in-august/">https://southernagtoday.org/2026/07/15/july-2026-wasde-acreage-moves-in-july-yields-move-in-august/</a>



Pro Farmer. “2026 Pro Farmer Crop Tour.” Pro Farmer, August 22, 2026. https://www.profarmer.com/pro-farmer-crop-tour



U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS). “Crop Progress.” August 24, 2026. https://esmis.nal.usda.gov/publication/crop-progress



U.S. Department of Agriculture, World Agricultural Outlook Board (USDA-WAOB). “World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates.” August 12, 2026. https://esmis.nal.usda.gov/publication/world-agricultural-supply-and-demand-estimates



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



Recommended citation format: Gardner, Grant. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/09/01/does-a-big-pro-farmer-crop-tour-gap-mean-a-big-wasde-yield-change/">Does a Big Pro Farmer Crop Tour Gap Mean a Big WASDE Yield Change?</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(36.3). September 2, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/09/01/does-a-big-pro-farmer-crop-tour-gap-mean-a-big-wasde-yield-change/">Permalink</a>

Does a Big Pro Farmer Crop Tour Gap Mean a Big WASDE Yield Change?

Australian beef has become an increasingly significant presence in the U.S. import market. In 2022, Australia contributed 401.8 million pounds, roughly 12 percent of total U.S. beef imports. Australia’s share of imports has steadily grown since then, reaching 25 percent of total imports in 2025, and the trend shows no signs of reversing in 2026.



Figure 1 illustrates Australia&#8217;s beef imports as a share of total monthly U.S. beef imports in 2025, 2026, and the five-year average from 2020 to 2024. Historically, Australian beef represented a relatively steady 13 percent to 21 percent of monthly U.S. imports. In 2025, that share climbed well above that historical norm, rising sharply through the second half of the year and peaking near 32 percent before finishing December around 31 percent. So far in 2026, the pattern has followed a similar seasonal trend, dipping in the early months before recovering, with recent months tracking above the same period in 2025. Taken together, the data makes clear that Australian beef now occupies a structurally larger share of the U.S. import market than what was considered normal just a few years ago.



Trade Ports



Understanding where this beef originates can also help producers and market watchers track future import flows. Australian beef exports to the U.S. move primarily through ports on Australia&#8217;s east coast. Based on the most recent available data, which captures all Australian red meat exports but is largely driven by beef, the Port of Melbourne, Victoria, accounted for 41 percent of exports. Melbourne serves as a major export gateway given the high concentration of packing facilities in the surrounding region. The Port of Brisbane, Queensland, handled 35 percent of exports and is one of Australia&#8217;s most active meat-loading ports, home to JBS Dinmore, the largest beef processing plant in the Southern Hemisphere, along with Cargill and several other major processors in the Brisbane Valley. Port Botany in Sydney, New South Wales, accounted for 19 percent of exports, while the Port of Adelaide, South Australia, and the Port of Fremantle, Western Australia, represented just 3 percent and 1 percent, respectively. The concentration of export activity through Melbourne and Brisbane reflects the infrastructure and processing capacity those regions have built to supply export markets, including an increasingly hungry U.S. import market.



What Does This Mean? More imported beef means more competition for space in the domestic market, especially for cull cows and bulls. While the majority of imports have been lean beef trimmings for ground beef, muscle cuts are also imported, which would compete more directly with fed beef.&nbsp; Imports are of particular interest now, as the U.S. cow herd sits near historic lows following years of liquidation driven by drought and high input costs. Domestic producers might have rebuilding in their plans, but rebuilding takes years and requires producer expectations of cattle prices to remain financially viable. At a time when tighter domestic beef supplies would normally support even stronger prices, the surge in Australian (and other countries&#8217;) imports is a counterweight, tempering some of the price signals U.S. producers are counting on to invest.



Figure 1. Monthly Australia beef imports as a percentage of all US beef imports 



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img decoding="async" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/6.36.2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44699"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: USDA-ERS</figcaption></figure>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



Recommended citation format: Martinez, Charley. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/08/25/recent-australian-beef-import-trends/">Recent Australian Beef Import Trends.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(36.2). September 1, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/08/25/recent-australian-beef-import-trends/">Permalink</a>

Recent Australian Beef Import Trends

Authors: James L. Mitchell, Associate Professor and Fryar Price Risk Management Center Associate Director, University of Arkansas, and Ryan Loy, Assistant Professor and Extension Economist, University of Arkansas.



With cattle prices at historical highs, few investments carry more weight for a cow-calf operation than the decision to add replacement females. A producer has several options including buying heifers or mature cows that are either bred or open, buying cow/calf pairs, or retaining and developing a heifer calf of their own.&nbsp; Each option comes with unique upfront costs and timing of returns. Current heifer prices have raised the stakes and financial tradeoffs of this decision, and the best strategy depends on assumptions that vary by operation and year.&nbsp;



Buying a bred heifer means paying today’s price to calve next spring. Raising your own means giving up what a calf could have sold for at weaning, covering a year of expenses, and waiting an extra year for her first calf. Higher heifer prices make buying more expensive but also increases the opportunity cost of holding a heifer calf back rather than selling her.



<a href="https://james-mitchell-1620.shinyapps.io/heifer-analysis/">The Beef Cow and Heifer Investment Analysis</a> tool was developed to help producers with this decision. The tool is a free online dashboard that allows producers to enter their own data, such as heifer price, annual cow costs, weaning weight, calf crop percentage, cull weight, discount rate, and cost inflation. The dashboard returns net present value (NPV), breakeven heifer price, payback period, and average annual net return, all of which update in real time (Figure 1).



Figure 1. Heifer Investment Analysis Dashboard Overview



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1008" height="710" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/6.36.1-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44689" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/6.36.1-1.png 1008w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/6.36.1-1-767x540.png 767w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1008px) 100vw, 1008px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Note: The analysis presented assumes that a producer self-finances the heifer purchase. A user may also select borrowed funds to compare the feasibility of both options.   </figcaption></figure>



Consider the dashboard’s default assumptions: a 92% weaning rate, 520-pound weaning weight, $1,100 in annual cow costs, an 8 percent discount rate, and an 8-year productive life, with calf prices and cost inflation following the USDA calf price forecast (users can also substitute their own price and cost expectations). Under these assumptions, the tool estimates the maximum price a producer could pay for a heifer while maintaining an 8 percent return ($5,018/hd in this case), as well as the payback period to recover the investment. Changing an assumption can significantly impact the outcome, highlighting how much this decision is operation specific. For example, reducing the weaning rate to 87% (compared to the default 92%), while holding all other assumptions constant, results in a net present value of -$596/hd. &nbsp;



The decision to buy or raise heifers boils down to cash-flow timing and the price paid relative to what a heifer returns over her productive life. The dashboard does not determine which strategy is correct for an operation. However, it provides cattle producers and other agricultural stakeholders with a framework to evaluate the trade-offs between these strategies. The Beef Cow and Heifer Investment Analysis Tool is completely free to use and can be accessed <a href="https://james-mitchell-1620.shinyapps.io/heifer-analysis/">here</a> on any device with an internet connection.



This is part of a series of articles on the new Beef Cow and Heifer Investment Analysis Tool. In forthcoming articles, we will review other features of the tool, the user manual, and interpretation of the results the tool provides.



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



Recommended citation format: Mitchell, James, and Ryan Loy. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/08/25/how-much-should-you-pay-for-a-replacement-heifer/">How Much Should You Pay for a Replacement Heifer?</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(36.1). August 31, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/08/25/how-much-should-you-pay-for-a-replacement-heifer/">Permalink</a>

How Much Should You Pay for a Replacement Heifer?

Authors: Jesse J. Richardson, Jr. and Paul Goeringer



A recent Missouri case provides an important reminder of the importance of how property is titled and the implications of attempting to change the titling of property. The story in Sielert v. Sielert, 737 S.W.3d 210 (Mo. Ct. App. 2026) begins with brothers Loren, Brian, and David Sielert receiving title to the family farm from their mother as joint tenants with the right of survivorship. With a joint tenancy, the ownership interest in a deceased co-owner passes to the other co-owners equally. In this case, Loren and David passed away, and Brian claimed sole ownership of the farm.



However, prior to his death, Loren recorded a beneficiary deed (also called transfer on death deed) that conveyed his interest to his son, Jordan, and recited that the deed severed the joint tenancy with right of survivorship and converted Loren’s interest to a tenancy in common. A tenancy in common is the other major way that multiple landowners can hold property. In a tenancy in common, the ownership interest held by a deceased owner passes to their heirs or under their will. In this case, if Loren held his 1/3 interest as a tenant in common, that 1/3 interest would pass to his son Jordan.



Therefore, the question in this case was whether Brian held a 100% interest in the farm or whether Brian owned a 2/3 interest and his nephew Jordan a 1/3 interest. Brian filed suit against his nephew, claiming 100% ownership interest.



A co-owner may sever a joint tenancy with right of survivorship by conveying their interest. The rules are fairly complex, so you should consult with an attorney if you have specific questions. However, a beneficiary deed conveys the property at the death of the grantor (in this case, Loren). The language in the beneficiary deed purporting to sever the joint tenancy was not enough to sever the joint tenancy. The court found that at Loren’s death, his interest in the property instantaneously went to the surviving joint tenants. Therefore, there was nothing left for the beneficiary deed to convey. Brian owns 100% of the family farm.



This case reminds us of the importance of the way property is titled. If Mom wanted the last survivor of her three children to own the family farm, the joint tenancy with right of survivorship would accomplish that goal. However, any of the three children could thwart that goal by conveying the property and severing the joint tenancy. This case also illustrates the limitations of conventional forms of property ownership. Mom perhaps should have formed a limited liability and included agreements to ensure that her goals were accomplished. The case also teaches important concepts about a beneficiary (or transfer on death) deed. These deeds allow a property owner to retain ownership until their death and convey the property without going through probate. However, like any other legal document, you should consult with an attorney and give the matter considerable thought before using that tool. Ironically, it appears that Loren consulted an attorney, but the attorney did not completely understand the nature of a beneficiary deed. The bottom line is that estate and transition planning is complex and involves difficult family dynamics. Every step should be well thought out and discussed with the family and an attorney.



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



Recommended citation format: Richardson, Jr., Jesse J., and Paul Goeringer. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/08/25/the-importance-of-titling-of-property/">The Importance of Titling of Property</a>.&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(35.5). August 28, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/08/25/the-importance-of-titling-of-property/">Permalink</a>

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities