Seigle v. Jasper
Kentucky Court of Appeals
867 S.W.2d 476 (1993)
- Written by Ron Leshnower, JD
Facts
In 1979, John and Carol Seigle (plaintiffs) wanted to purchase a second lot of property in Kentucky from owners Thomas R. and Verneasa Jasper (defendants) and Floyd and Mildred Tennill (defendants). The Seigles applied for a loan from The Peoples Bank of Mount Washington (Peoples Bank) to purchase the new lot and pay the remaining balance under the contract for the first lot, which was also purchased from the Jaspers and the Tennills. The Seigles agreed to use Peoples Bank Attorney Robert M. Coots to perform the title search in connection with the loan. The Seigles paid Coots for the search as part of the closing costs. In 1984, the Seigles refinanced the loan with Peoples Bank. Coots again performed the title search on the property. In 1988, Ashland Oil, Inc. (Ashland Oil) notified the Seigles that a recorded right-of-way easement for an underground pipeline affected both of the Seigles’ lots. Ashland Oil warned the Seigles that placement of a mobile home on one lot and a small building on the other lot, as the Seigles had planned, would violate the right-of-way granted to Ashland Oil under the easement. The Seigles sued the Jaspers and the Tennills for fraud and breach of warranty. The trial court dismissed the action. The Seigles also sued Coots for damages based on the negligent title search that failed to uncover the easement. The trial court dismissed the claim against Coots. The Seigles appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Johnson, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Dyche, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.