Synopsis

Farmland can be a family’s largest asset, its operating business, and its legacy all at once. That combination makes succession planning unusually difficult, especially when heirs have different roles and the estate has little liquidity, unclear successors, and delayed decision-making. This article offers a practical, values-first approach known as the LAND VALUES framework, and a “return on life” perspective, which estate planning professionals can use to guide families from uncertainty to action: defining “fair” in workable terms, mapping liquidity and timing constraints, clarifying who decides what and comparing a small set of “least-regret” pathways (hold, lease, restructure, conserve or sell). The goal is to help families make technically sound decisions that preserve both financial outcomes and relationships.

Why This Planning Feels Different

Farmland is not just another asset. It is typically concentrated and illiquid, and it may function as an operating business, a retirement plan, and a legacy symbol at the same time. The stakes are rising roughly 40% of the nation’s farm and forest land is owned by individuals aged 65 and older, and more than 370 million acres are expected to change ownership by 2040 — one of the largest intergenerational transfers of wealth in American history.¹

Engagement has not kept pace. USDA census data show that 61% of farms reported engaging in estate or succession planning in 2022, down from 65% in 2017². But discussing succession is not the same as putting a plan in place. Surveys of commercial producers suggest that only about half have a written succession plan in place.³ The families in the gap between “we’ve talked about it” and “we’ve decided” are the ones sitting across from estate planning professionals.

Consider a composite familiar to many practitioners: a 900-acre grain operation, a widowed owner in her late seventies, one child who has farmed the land for decades and three siblings who live out of state. The land is worth several million dollars, but the estate does not have enough liquid assets to equalize even one heir without using the land. Every heir wants “what is fair” and no two of them mean the same thing by it.

Start With Values Before Numbers

Farm transitions usually fail for nontechnical reasons. In the author’s transition practice, families often begin with “How do we divide the assets?” before anyone has asked why the land matters, what each person needs or what success would look like. Planning improves when the advisor starts with the “why” conversation before moving to the “how.”

A useful starting mindset is “return on life,” a concept borrowed from life-centered financial planning and adapted for farmland families: the right decision is the one that supports not only the family’s finances, but also its well-being, its progress toward meaningful goals and its freedom to choose, rather than maximizing return on investment alone.⁴ Families weighing a farm decision against “return on life” stop arguing positions (“keep” versus “sell”) and start comparing priorities (security, stewardship, fairness, continuity, simplicity).

The LAND VALUES framework gives that conversation structure.⁵ It takes its name from ten value categories families are asked to weigh: Legacy and lifestyle, Alignment of goals, Needs and priorities, Decision-making structure, Value (emotional and financial), Asset management, Long-term viability, Understanding family dynamics, Environmental and community impact, and Stewardship and strategy. In practice, it runs as a five-phase conversation map the advisory team can facilitate:

Phase	What It Means for the Family	The Advisor’s Move
1. Listen	Create space for each person’s story before any solution is discussed.	Interview decision-makers separately; ask what the land has meant to each of them.
2. Acknowledge	Validate the different roles the farm has played — income, identity, home, inheritance.	Restate each perspective in neutral language so every party hears it recognized.
3. Name Priorities	Work through the value categories and surface what matters most.	Have each decision-maker rank their top two or three values; list what must be protected and what can flex.
4. Define Scenarios	Explore the real implications of holding, leasing, restructuring, conserving, or selling.	Present three to four viable pathways and test each against the stated priorities.
5. Strategize	Align on direction and commit to next steps.	Document the decision, assign responsibilities across disciplines, and set trigger dates.

Exhibit 1. The LAND VALUES conversation map, adapted from “American Family Farmland: Preserving Values and Creating Wealth.”

For estate planning professionals one of the framework’s practical benefits is that it gives families neutral language for difficult subjects. Unequal contributions, a successor’s below-market wages, or a sibling’s need for cash can be discussed as planning considerations rather than accusations. That makes it easier to build alignment before selecting technical strategies.

The Seven Pressure Points Advisors See Most

Across farmland families, the issues that stall planning cluster around fairness, liquidity, goal clarity, and timing.

1) Fair versus Equal Among Heirs

Families often default to “equal” because it sounds fair, even when an equal land split forces a sale or makes the farm financially unworkable for the farming successor. Succession educators note that fair-versus-equal conversations are among the most difficult when on-farm and off-farm heirs will inherit asymmetrically.⁶ Questions that help: What does “fair” mean here: equal land, equal dollars, or equitable outcomes? What has the on-farm successor already invested in labor or risk? What does each off-farm heir need to feel respected: inclusion, understanding, predictability, or liquidity? Which outcome would feel unacceptable?

Advisor move: Run a short “fairness definition” exercise (LAND VALUES phase 3) before discussing tools. Each decision-maker lists what must be protected and what can be flexible; the advisor restates the shared priorities in plain language.

2) Illiquidity, Taxes and Cash Flow

Farmland can be high-value, but cash-poor. When land is the main asset, funding settlement costs, equalization, long-term care, and retirement income becomes a constraint, and rushed transfers routinely forfeit planning opportunities (valuation strategy, installment structures, entity design, basis planning) that deliberate timelines preserve. Questions that clarify reality: What expenses must be funded regardless of outcome (care, taxes, debt service, buyouts)? What is the family’s liquidity timeline? What breaks first if nothing changes for two years?

Advisor move: Create a one-page “liquidity map” (obligations, reliable income, and gaps) then evaluate every option by whether it creates cash, preserves cash, or requires cash.

3) No Identified Successor and No Timeline

A common roadblock is the absence of a willing and prepared next generation — the gap between engaging in planning and implementing a written plan noted above.³ Questions that reduce avoidance: Who is willing and able to lead within five years? If no successor emerges, what is the preferred Plan B (lease, professional management, or an orderly sale)? What decision must be made in the next 12 months regardless of successor uncertainty?

Advisor move: Separate successor planning from ownership planning. Build two pathways — “successor emerges” and “no successor” — each with trigger dates and decision points.

4) Avoidance and Family Communication

Many families avoid meetings because they fear conflict or lack shared language. Succession research identifies why conflict concentrates here: family legacy, large asset values, mixed business and family roles, different values, misaligned goals and ambiguity about timeline, control, and outcomes.⁷ Questions that create traction: What conversation is the family avoiding? Who needs to be included now, and who should be informed later? What ground rules keep the process respectful and productive?

Advisor move: Introduce a structured meeting plan (see “A Two-Meeting Structure” below) and put the ground rules in writing.

5) Misunderstanding Legal and Titling Choices

Legacy titling choices can create unintended risk. Even when a family “already has a plan,” advisors often need to clarify how control actually works, what happens if one owner wants out and how creditor or family-law events could affect continuity. Questions that make risk visible: What problem was the current structure meant to solve when it was created? Who can sign leases, approve improvements, or make management decisions today? What happens if one owner divorces, becomes disabled or wants liquidity?

Advisor move: Build a plain language “control chart”: who decides what, what requires unanimity and what happens in predictable disruption scenarios.

6) Valuation, Conservation and “Highest and Best Use”

Value disagreements can stall planning, especially when land has development potential or conservation interest. The classic “bundle of sticks” metaphor — property as a severable collection of rights — helps families see that a conservation easement removes or limits certain sticks (subdividing, developing) while preserving others (owning, farming, transferring).⁸ Agricultural conservation easements are voluntary, generally permanent, leave the land in private ownership and transferable, and involve ongoing monitoring and enforcement of deed terms.⁹ Questions that keep this productive: Is the family optimizing for maximum dollars, maximum stewardship or a blend? Which restrictions are acceptable, and which would undermine the farm’s future viability? Who will monitor compliance, and what does that mean in practice?

7) Integrating Business, Retirement and Legacy Goals

Many farms are simultaneously businesses and retirement plans. Naming the different goal categories aloud reduces conflict: senior-generation goals often center on income security and a gradual transition; successor goals on real authority, equity building and an affordable path in; off-farm heir goals on fairness, inclusion, and relationship preservation.¹⁰

Advisor move: Design a phased roadmap so control, income and responsibility can transfer on different timelines instead of all at once.

A Two-Meeting Structure That Improves Follow-Through

Asking a family to decide the outcome in the first meeting often produces more resistance than progress. A better structure separates clarity from commitment.

Meeting 1: Clarify and inventory (60 to 90 minutes).

• Confirm decision-makers and define roles; define success and fairness terms.
• Identify constraints and deadlines.
• Assign fact gathering: titles, leases, debt, insurance, entity documents, tax summaries.

Meeting 2: Options and commitments (60 to 90 minutes).

• Present three to four viable pathways and compare them against stated goals (LAND VALUES phases 4 and 5).
• Choose a direction and document next steps.
• Assign responsibilities across the legal, tax, investment, trust, and insurance disciplines.

Meeting logistics matter more than advisors expect. Succession meeting guidance recommends inviting the right participants, circulating an agenda in advance, setting written ground rules, meeting away from the kitchen table, giving each person time to speak and agreeing in advance on how decisions will be made, as well as “safe space” rules such as taking turns, listening to learn, staying on topic and circulating notes and an action plan afterward.¹¹

Who Is at the Table, and When

Participation planning prevents confusion and resentment. A three-tier model works well: current owners first, to establish goals and identify key players; next-generation owners second, to modify the plan and provide feedback; spouses and extended family third, to receive the plan.¹¹ It also helps to clarify voting expectations early. Off-farm heirs who will become owners may hold a vote on ownership questions but not on every operating decision, while tangentially involved relatives may not vote at all but appreciate being informed.¹¹

Normalize the Timeline

Families lose momentum when they expect resolutions in months. Succession education reports that the time between initial discussion and actual handover of management and ownership control averages roughly 6.5 years for intra-family succession, about 3.3 years for transfers to employees, and about 1.6 years for sales.¹² Those timeframes are a reminder to start early and treat succession as a series of decisions, not a single closing. Governance, management, and ownership transfer can move on different schedules if the milestones are clear.

Conclusion: The Advisory Team Around the Land

When farmland makes up a large share of the family balance sheet, the technical plan is only part of the job. Advisors also need a process for working through fairness, liquidity, control, and timing. Once the family has clarity on those points, the technical work is easier to assign: counsel can address entity design, titling, trust provisions and fiduciary authority; the CPA can model tax consequences and basis; insurance and financial professionals can test liquidity and equalization options; and the farmland specialist can evaluate leasing, valuation, conservation and sale alternatives. The measure of a good plan is not simply whether it works on paper, but whether the family understands it well enough to carry it out.

Author Biography

Johnny Klemme is a farmland advisor, broker and CAI-designated auctioneer who supports landowning families and their advisory teams through high-stakes farm transition decisions. His work centers on practical, values-based frameworks, including the LAND VALUES framework, which help families reduce conflict, clarify goals, and implement durable succession, estate, and land stewardship plans. He works alongside estate planning attorneys, CPAs, trust officers, insurance professionals, and financial advisors as the farmland specialist on the client’s team. He is the author of “American Family Farmland: Preserving Values and Creating Wealth.” Website: AmericanFamilyFarmland.com

Endnotes

1. Kurt Smith & Frederick Cubbage, “Land Fragmentation and Heirs Property: Current Issues and Policy Responses,” Land 13, no. 4 (2024): 459, https://doi.org/10.3390/land13040459.
2. Anil K. Giri, Dipak Subedi & Scott Callahan, “American Farms Engaged in Estate or Succession Planning,” Choices Magazine (1st Quarter 2026) (reporting 2022 USDA Census of Agriculture data), https://www.choicesmagazine.org.
3. Margaret Lippsmeyer, Michael Langemeier, James Mintert & Nathanael Thompson, “Factors Impacting Succession Planning,” farmdoc daily 13, no. 163 (Sept. 8, 2023) (55 percent of surveyed commercial producers reported a written succession plan).
4. The phrase “return on life” originates in life-centered financial planning; see, e.g., Mitch Anthony, The New Retirementality (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 5th ed. 2019). The adaptation for farmland families — well-being, progress, and freedom as decision criteria — is the author’s; see Johnny Klemme, American Family Farmland (Indianapolis, IN: Niche Pressworks, 2025).
5. Klemme, American Family Farmland, supra note 4, ch. 4 (presenting the ten value categories and the five-phase conversation map).
6. Renee Wiatt, Kurt Smith & Rebecca Smith, Who Will Fill My Shoes? Succession Planning for Landowners and Businesses, open-access curriculum, Module 2 (North Central Regional Center for Rural Development, Southern Rural Development Center, Purdue Institute for Family Business, North Carolina State University & Mississippi State University Extension; funded by USDA Farm Service Agency).
7. Id. Module 1 (drivers of conflict in succession).
8. See United States v. Craft, 535 U.S. 274, 278 (2002) (describing property as a “bundle of sticks”); Who Will Fill My Shoes, supra note 6, Module 3 (applying the metaphor to conservation easements).
9. Who Will Fill My Shoes, supra note 6, Module 3; see also Farmland Information Center (American Farmland Trust & USDA), “Agricultural Conservation Easements” fact sheet, https://farmlandinfo.org.
10. Who Will Fill My Shoes, supra note 6, Module 4 (goal setting, vision, and roadmapping).
11. Who Will Fill My Shoes, supra note 6, Module 5 (meeting planning and coordination: participants, ground rules, and logistics).
12. Who Will Fill My Shoes, supra note 6, Module 4 (typical responsibility-transfer timeframes; succession roadmap adapted from Thomas Zellweger, Managing the Family Business: Theory and Practice (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2017)).