Hallett Construction Co. v. Meister

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that the plaintiff- lessors were on inquiry notice when the lessee invoked a fraudulently added renewal provision, even though the plaintiffs attributed the addition to their misremembering the original lease
• explaining that claim for recovery of real property did not arise until tenant refused to vacate property after termi- nation of tenancy because that is when the occupancy became adverse rather than permissive
• “Though the Meisters may have questioned their collective memory and not realized they possessed evidence to establish [the] fraud, they certainly had 8 enough information . . . to alert them of the need to investigate.”
• “[W]e look beyond the label placed on the claim by the parties and instead focus on ‘the actual nature of the action’ to determine the applicable limitations period.” (quoting Bob McKiness Excavating & Grading, Inc. v. Morton Bldgs., Inc., 507 N.W.2d 405, 411 (Iowa 1993))
• “The discovery rule tolls the statute of limitations until the plaintiff has discovered ‘the fact of the injury and its cause’ or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered these facts.” (quoting K & W Elec., Inc. v. State, 712 N.W.2d 107, 116 (Iowa 2006))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).