If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer for free.

Defendant's Attorney: Kevin J. Driscoll and Andrew T. Patton

Description: Waterloo, Iowa civil litigation lawyers represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendant on a breach of contract theory.


Even always had an interest in the mini-storage business. So he kept an eye on a property near his house that he thought would be a good location to build storage units.

On June 16, 2017, Even entered a purchase agreement to buy the property. The purchase agreement said Even was buying the property "SUBJECT . . . TO EXISTING EASEMENTS, IF ANY." The agreement also said that

[a]t the time of the final payment hereunder, the [s]eller shall convey the premises to the [b]uyer by warranty deed and shall furnish the [b]uyer an abstract of title . . . . Within a reasonable time after the execution of this agreement, such abstract . . . shall be submitted to the [b]uyer for examination. Buyer or [b]uyer's attorney shall either approve the title or point out specific objections. After all valid objections have been satisfied or provided for, [s]eller shall have no obligation to pay for further abstracting excepting any made necessary by his own affairs.

Two days later, on June 18, the sellers signed the purchase agreement.

At the seller's request, TSC prepared an updated abstract and sent it to Even's attorney, who received it on June 28. TSC's abstract showed no easements on the property. Even's attorney then prepared a title opinion based on TSC's abstract. Like the abstract, the title opinion showed there were no easements on the property. Even's attorney provided the title opinion to Even the same day.

A couple weeks later, the sale closed. On July 13, Even paid the agreed-upon purchase price. On July 14, the sellers conveyed the property to Even and his spouse, Kimberly Anne Even.

On August 22-more than a month after the sale closed-Even formed APS, a limited liability company (LLC), for the purpose of operating a mini-storage business on the property. The certificate of organization identified Even as the only initial member of APS.

As Even prepared to begin building the mini-storage units, he discovered that there was a sewer easement on the property. This was confirmed in a May 2018 letter from Black Hawk County Abstract & Title. The letter explained that the sewer easement-which had not been identified in TSC's abstract-was granted in 1980.

Even after learning of the easement, though, Even did not consider selling the property and building elsewhere because he still liked the location. Instead, Even began construction of storage units on the property. The first units were constructed in the late summer and early fall of 2018.

In October 2018, Even and his spouse transferred the property to APS via quitclaim deed. APS leases the storage units to tenants.

In December 2019, Even brought this action against TSC. His petition alleged TSC "was negligent in disclosing the easement[,] which affects the title to this property[,] and is liable to [Even] for the damages he has sustained." Even later filed a motion to add APS as a plaintiff. The district court granted Even's motion.


TSC filed a motion for summary judgment. Among other things, TSC argued that (1) TSC did not owe a duty of care to APS and (2) TSC's failure to identify the easement was not the proximate cause of the damages claimed by Even. The district court granted TSC's motion.

Outcome: "Because we find the First Amendment does not bar negligent-supervision claims against religious entities, and Anne’s claim is not time-barred, we reverse the judgment of the district court. We affirm the summary adjudication of plaintiffs’ defamation claims. On remand, defendant must produce the identified documents for in camera inspection."

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: