Once the parties have agreed upon the price and entered into a written agreement, the earnest money is typically deposited with the brokerage of the listing agent. The earnest money will be held until the transaction closes. At closing, the earnest money will be applied towards the purchase price of the property. However, if the transaction does not close and one of the parties backs out of the deal, then the parties will need to determine which party will receive the earnest money. Determining which party gets to keep the earnest money will depend largely on the language and provisions included in the purchase agreement.

If you have questions regarding earnest money or purchase agreements, the attorneys at Hartung Schroeder can help.

ABOUT TRAVIS BRENNER

Travis is an associate attorney at Hartung Schroeder. His experience includes real estate and family law, civil litigation, and working with clients to form non-profit organizations and businesses. Travis also holds a Master of Business Administration degree, which allows him to better address the needs of business clients. You can read more about Travis or get in touch with him here.

NIL knows no boundaries . . . yet!

The NCAA’s “acceptance” of the reality that student-athletes must be allowed to make money from their own NIL (Name, Image and Likeness) has created a huge “gray area” when it comes to what is or is not permissible.

The NCAA’s initial “Interim NIL Policy” is clearly a punt – deferring to state laws which have been promulgated to define the rights and responsibilities of student-athletes when it comes to making money. It is apparent that the NCAA is hoping for uniform Federal Legislation to be passed – largely to eliminate the nightmare of policing fifty different state laws and the impact different rules in different states will have on “fair competition.”

Prior to NIL, the NCAA strictly limited income opportunities in order to preserve the “amateur status” of its student-athletes. However, this position has eroded quickly following the June 21, 2021 United States Supreme Court decision in NCAA v. Alston et. Al – which struck down NCAA rules limiting the education related benefits schools may make available to student-athletes.

In the wake of Alston, student-athletes can now earn money so long as payment is not:

• Contingent upon enrollment at a particular institution
• For athletic participation or achievement
• For work not performed

Unless restricted by State Law – everything else appears to be fair game – for now. Without question, additional rules, regulations, interpretations and limits will soon follow. Otherwise, an unlimited “free market” system will undoubtedly destroy any sense of parity / fair competition that may currently remain in the NCAA.

Without boundaries – the rich will get richer and the NCAA (in its present form) will become obsolete. Until then, if you are a prospect, student athlete, coach or institution, the attorneys at Hartung Schroeder have experience with NCAA Compliance issues and we are available to assist you in navigating these uncharted waters.

ABOUT J.D. HARTUNG

J.D. is a co-founder and partner at the law firm of Hartung and Schroeder. He started the firm with friend and colleague, Brad Schroeder, after working in both boutique and large, multi-state firms. He saw first-hand that a small firm brings definite advantages to clients. Experienced in general litigation, he serves a wide range of clients including those seeking legal counsel for business, family law issues and personal injury. You can read more about him or get in touch here.

Restrictive covenants, aka property covenants, tell you what you can and cannot do with your property.  Two main purposes of covenants are to limit the misuse of property and maintain property values.  Restrictive covenants are often put in place by land developers who are developing a tract of land into a subdivision of homes.  First, the developer creates a list of covenants that restrict the use of the lots being sold in a particular subdivision, then the developer would file those covenants at the county recorder’s office.  After the covenants are filed, they will remain connected to land until the covenants expire or are terminated. Since the covenants are connected to the land, they will pass from seller to purchaser.

Examples of Restrictive Covenants:

• House Requirements: Covenants may require a minimum square footage or house design, such as a one or two story house.
• Design Approval: Covenants may require any new construction plans, renovations, or other improvements to be reviewed and approved by a committee or HOA prior to being initiated.
• Business Usage: Covenants may prohibit homeowners from operating a business out of their home.
• Pet Restrictions: Covenants may limit the number and type of pets that are allowed on your property.
• Other Restrictions: Covenants may restrict home owners from storing trash in their yard, posting signs or billboards on their property, or parking vehicles on their driveways. Covenants may also require homeowners to mow their lawn every so often or upkeep their landscaping in a particular manner.

This is not an exhaustive list of covenants, and it is important to research the covenants you may be subject to before purchasing a new property.  Overall, covenants are designed to maintain continuity and preserve property values within a particular neighborhood, subdivision, or group of properties.  However, some covenants may prevent you from using your property the way you would like. If you have questions or concerns related to property covenants, an experienced real estate attorney at Hartung Schroeder can help.

ABOUT TRAVIS BRENNER

Travis is an associate attorney at Hartung Schroeder. His experience includes real estate and family law, civil litigation, and working with clients to form non-profit organizations and businesses. Travis also holds a Master of Business Administration degree, which allows him to better address the needs of business clients.

While at Drake, Travis worked in the Drake Legal Clinic providing legal services to start-up businesses and non-profit organizations in the Des Moines areas.

Travis joined Hartung Schroeder in March 2020 as a law clerk.  Since that time, he has been working in a number of diverse legal areas including family law, real estate, non-profit and business formation, and litigation support with a focus on real estate and transactional law.

Prior to joining Hartung Schroeder, Travis was a law clerk at Iowa Realty.  In that role, he provided direct support to the company’s general counsel and reviewed purchase agreements and real estate contracts. Travis also has an undergraduate degree from Drake University in business management. Before law school he worked as a business analyst for Farm Bureau Financial Services.

Yet, traditional divorce tries to keep the emotions on the sideline by focusing on each party’s legal position. Often the court process itself can cause trauma for families. For families, for mothers/fathers, for husbands/wives; the litigation-centered divorce approach is just not natural. The “parties” are two people who, at one point, chose to commit themselves to each other and to build a life together. When most people are first getting married, neither spouse can do wrong; their positives completely outweigh any negatives. When parties are contemplating divorce, it is an entirely different story. Anger and mistrust have taken over, and spouses interpret any action by the other spouse as an intentional slight against them. Often, this reaction is rooted in fear: fear of the future, fear of the unknown, and fear of being taken advantage of. There has to be a better way to “unmarry” these spouses – who were once so in love – without a knock-down-drag-out fight. There has to be a better way to unwind the lives of these two individuals without creating another trauma.

Collaborative Divorce is the better way. Collaborative Divorce keeps families out of court. Each spouse has their own separate attorney, and the two attorneys are there solely for the purpose of reaching an out-of-court agreement. Zero time, zero energy, and zero money go towards preparing for court hearings. The attorneys’ focus is entirely on helping the family move forward. The goal is for the parties to move on with their lives as painlessly as possible. Plain and simple. With Collaborative Divorce, the spouses are bound by a contract, known as a Participation Agreement, that prohibits their Collaborative attorneys from being used in court. On the rare occasion the spouses are unable to reach an agreement and must proceed to court, their Collaborative attorneys would withdraw and the spouses would hire new trial counsel. Incidentally, the majority of spouses going through a Collaborative Divorce reach a full agreement. They are committed to a peaceful process from the beginning, and it shows in their outcomes.

Collaborative Divorce is the better way to help families process the emotions of divorce. Attorneys are equipped to advise and to make arguments for our clients. We aren’t specifically trained to handle the emotional aspects of divorce. However, therapists and mental-health professionals are equipped for this. They specialize in family dynamics, interpersonal communication, and child development. They can help develop a parenting plan – when children are involved – that is developmentally and emotionally tailored to meet your children’s needs. These professionals are brought into the Collaborative Divorce process to cut through the emotional baggage and help spouses reach an agreement. To help you see beyond the past so you can get to your better future. To help you move on. To help you move forward. It is as simple as that.

Collaborative Divorce is also the better way to help families process the financial questions involved in divorce. Attorneys are not specifically trained in the art of financial analysis. Similar to the mental health experts, neutral financial experts can also be brought in to provide – among other things – income projections, budgeting solutions, and retirement projections for spouses involved in the divorce process. In the Collaborative Divorce process, parties agree to provide the financial professional with documentation of all marital assets. They agree to full financial transparency. With this agreement, the financial professional can review the financial documents and help the parties address concerns and jointly plan for the future. Retaining a Collaborative financial professional can also end up saving a family money in their divorce. In Iowa, divorcing spouses are required to exchange mandatory financial information and documents. In traditional court-based divorce, spouses do this through their attorneys. In Collaborative Divorce, both spouses work with one neutral financial expert. The financial expert is just that – an expert. They can work faster and cheaper than the attorneys to collect and analyze the spouses’ financial data. And, because they are working with both spouses, they will not need to request duplicate information for each spouse and there will be no reason to complete the traditional “discovery” process. This often saves clients thousands of dollars when they choose Collaborative divorce.

Collaborative Divorce is a simple and sensible idea based on the concept that families don’t belong in court.  Emotions are not ignored, but rather they are incorporated into the process so that spouses can move forward in their lives.  And families can benefit by a better understanding of their finances so that they can make smarter financial decisions more efficiently. If you are contemplating divorce, Laura Lockwood with Hartung Schroeder is trained in Collaborative Divorce and can assist you through this unique and forward-thinking divorce process.

In today’s employment environment, employees are increasingly being asked to sign “non-compete” agreements.  These types of agreements can take many forms and include a range of different restrictive covenants. For example, they can prohibit and/or restrict:  (a) the use of confidential and/or proprietary information; (b) the solicitation of customers; (c) the solicitation of employees; and (d) general competition within a given industry or field.

Employees often sign agreements containing restrictive covenants without placing much thought or consideration of what the long-term implications of these covenants are.  Employees are often excited about the new opportunity before them and cannot envision a future scenario where these covenants may impact their lives.

Employers, on the other hand, often craft restrictive covenants which are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and as such, unlikely to be enforceable if challenged in court.  Employers are justifiably concerned with protecting the company and/or business they have worked hard to develop and grow, which can result in restrictive covenants that are not reasonable in scope and/or duration.

Regardless of which side of the transaction you are on, employee or employer, a basic understanding of how non-compete agreements are treated under Iowa law is necessary.  Iowa courts have consistently held “‘there is no public policy or rule which condemns or holds in disfavor a fair and reasonable non-compete agreement…such a contract is entitled to the same reasonable construction…accorded to business obligations in general.’”  Thrasher v. Grip-Tite Manufacturing Co., Inc., 536 F. Supp. 2d 937, 943 (S.D. Iowa 2008) (quotingCurtis 1000, Inc. v. Youngblade, 878 F. Supp. 1224, 1259 (N.D. Iowa 1995)).  In determining whether a restrictive covenant is enforceable, Iowa courts consider the following factors:

(1)        whether the restriction is reasonably necessary for the protection of the employer’s business;

• whether it is unreasonably restrictive of the employee’s rights; and
• whether it is prejudicial to the public interest.

Revere Transducers, Inc. v. Deere & Co., 595 N.W.2d 751, 761 (Iowa 1999).

As stated by the Iowa Supreme Court, “[e]ssentially, these rules require us to apply a reasonableness standard in maintaining a proper balance between the interests of the employer and the employee.”  Iowa Glass Depot, Inc. v. Jindrich, 338 N.W.2d 376, 381 (Iowa 1983).  Put another way, “the validity of the contract in each case must be determined on its own facts and a reasonable balance must be maintained between the interests of the employer and the employee.”  Baker v. Starkey, 144 N.W.2d 889, 897-898 (Iowa 1966).

Recognizing the long-term impact a non-compete agreement can have, whether you are an employee signing an overly restrictive agreement or an employer whose agreement may not be not enforceable as drafted, it is important to fully understand your rights and responsibilities relative to a non-compete agreement before it is executed.  A quick review by an experienced business attorney can help avoid unexpected consequences and unnecessary expense related to the future enforcement of a non-compete agreement.

ABOUT JON GARNER

Jon’s caseload often includes matters pertaining to business, family law, civil litigation, criminal matters and mediation. Regardless of the type of case, he believes in helping clients find common ground as they work toward resolution. You can read more about him or get in touch here.

In Iowa, there are two forms of marriage that are recognized. The first being the traditional marriage that is completed by meeting the necessary requirements and applying for a marriage license. The second type of marriage is known as common law marriage. Common law marriage in Iowa is informal and is generally disfavored by public policy. Therefore, claims of common law marriage will be strictly scrutinized by a reviewing court. Individuals who claim to be common law married have the burden of proving they meet the requirements for a common law marriage.

The three required elements for a common law marriage are: (1) the present intent and agreement of both parties to be married; (2) continuous cohabitation; and (3) public declarations or holding out to the public that the parties are husband and wife (or wife and wife, or husband and husband). Common law marriage will not exist if the parties keep the relationship a secret. Additionally, there is not a fixed amount of time couples must cohabitate in order to establish a common law marriage.

If you have questions or concerns regarding a common law marriage or other family law related matters, the attorneys at Hartung Schroeder are available to help.

ABOUT TRAVIS BRENNER

Travis has been a law clerk at Hartung Schroeder for the past year and will join the firm as an associate attorney upon completing his JD and MBA at Drake University. Some of his experience includes assisting clients with forming nonprofit organizations and other business entities as a student attorney in the Drake Legal Clinic. In the future, he hopes to develop a real estate practice that will complement the firm’s diverse areas of practice.

As an employee, you have a legal right to be free from sexual harassment in the workplace.  Sexual harassment is considered a form of sex discrimination, which is prohibited under both state and federal law.  Sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.  The conduct must be sufficiently severe or pervasive so that a reasonable person would find the work environment to be hostile.  A sexual harassment claim usually requires a showing of ongoing and repeated behavior, not an isolated event.

Some examples of sexual harassment in the workplace:

• Requests for sexual favors
• Unwanted touching or contact, including brushing up against a person
• Offensive/sexual images posted in the workplace
• Making sexually suggestive comments
• Unwanted sexual looks or gestures
• Conditioning employment benefits on sexual favors

If you are being sexually harassed at work, you should report it to your supervisor and/or the human resources department.  Be sure to keep a detailed record of each instance of harassment.  It is important to note that it is illegal for your employer retaliate against you for reporting the sexual harassment.  An employer cannot terminate you or take other negative actions against you for your reporting.

If your employer has failed to reasonably prevent or correct the harassing behavior, the attorneys at Hartung Schroeder can help protect your rights.

ABOUT TRAVIS BRENNER

Travis has been a law clerk at Hartung Schroeder for the past year and will join the firm as an associate attorney upon completing his JD and MBA at Drake University. Some of his experience includes assisting clients with forming nonprofit organizations and other business entities as a student attorney in the Drake Legal Clinic. In the future, he hopes to develop a real estate practice that will complement the firm’s diverse areas of practice.

“I have been harmed (either physically or financially) by the actions of a government entity.  Is there anything I can do?” We field questions like this often. The most common answer is, “It depends.”

While historically government was immune from suit under an old English concept in the law called “sovereign immunity” – literally decreeing that the king or queen could not be sued – the laws in the United States today have carved out significant exceptions to this principle. In Iowa, a law called the Iowa Tort Claims Act (Iowa Code Section 669 today) was passed in 1964 which specifically made the State of Iowa liable for common negligence and other matters, if certain procedures are followed in making a claim.  The same sort of liability potentially exists for cities, counties, and other government entities in Iowa under a similar statute, Iowa Code Section 670. In short, both Code sections provide that government entities in Iowa can be made liable for the harms to citizens they commit through wrongful or negligent acts of its employees acting in the scope of their duties.

So while some people may be inclined to throw up their arms, or shrug their shoulders, and declare with resignation “You can’t beat city hall,” many times you can get redress against city hall – or any other number of government subdivisions in Iowa. The right lawyer can help you figure out of you have a valid claim, and if so can help you navigate the process and get a fair recovery.

ABOUT BRAD SCHROEDER

Brad is a co-founder and partner in the law firm Hartung Schroeder. He believes in advocating for people in many areas of the law. He regularly represents clients in matters pertaining to family law, business law and personal injury. You can learn more about Brad or get in touch with him here.

If you are starting a business, there are many important decisions you will need to make. Possibly the most important choice will be selecting the type of business entity in which the business will operate. Different business entities will offer different benefits but may also have some drawbacks. Below is a list of the types of business entities and a brief description:

• Sole Proprietorship: A sole proprietorship is run by a single individual. This entity has the greatest flexibility but offers no liability protection for the owner.
• General Partnership: A general partnership requires two or more persons who contribute money, skills, or labor to form a business. The partners will share equally in profits and losses, and will have equal rights in decisions making regarding the business. The partners will be personally liable for the debts the business incurs.
  • Limited Partnership: This type of partnership requires one general partner and one limited partner. The limited partner(s) only contribute capital to the business and do not participate in operational decisions. However, the limited partner is only liable to the extent they contributed money to the partnership. The general partner(s) will function similar to a regular general partnership.
• Limited Liability Company (LLC): An LLC can be formed by one or multiple individuals. Other business entities may also form and participate in an LLC. An LLC is governed by an operating agreement which details how the business will be managed, how profits and losses will be split amongst the members, and the transferability of interests in the LLC. Members of an LLC are shielded from personal liability of the company’s debts. LLC’s must register with the Secretary of State.
• Corporation: A corporation is a legal entity that is separate from the individuals who form it. Ownership of a corporation is in the form of stock and the owners are called shareholders. Shareholders are not personally liable for the debts of the corporation. However, corporations are subject to double taxation (once at the corporate level and once when distributions are made to shareholders). Corporations are organized in a single state by filing Articles of Incorporation with the Secretary of State. It is more costly to form a corporation and requires a greater level of maintenance.

Some issues that people should consider when selecting a business entity include:

• The taxation of the entity
• The industry in which the business will operate
• The number of individuals in the entity
• The limited liability shield
• The cost of forming and maintaining the entity
• The flexibility for the owners

Selecting the proper business entity is crucial to the success of a business. If you have questions or concerns regarding the different business entities or would like assistance in forming your business entity, we can help at Hartung Schroeder.

ABOUT TRAVIS BRENNER

Travis has been a law clerk at Hartung Schroeder for the past year and will join the firm as an associate attorney upon completing his JD and MBA at Drake University. Some of his experience includes assisting clients with forming nonprofit organizations and other business entities as a student attorney in the Drake Legal Clinic. In the future, he hopes to develop a real estate practice that will complement the firm’s diverse areas of practice.