Connection lost
Server error
Hauer v. Union State Bank of Wautoma Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A woman with a brain injury sued to void a loan she obtained for a third party. The court voided the contract and excused her from repaying the loan because the bank lacked good faith, having reason to know of her mental incompetence.
Legal Significance: A contract with a mentally incompetent person is voidable. If the competent party knew or had reason to know of the incapacity, the incompetent party is not required to restore consideration that has been dissipated, departing from the general rule of restitution.
Hauer v. Union State Bank of Wautoma Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Kathy Hauer suffered a brain injury and was previously under a court-appointed guardianship. A year after the guardianship was terminated, she was convinced by Ben Eilbes, who was in default on a loan with Union State Bank, to take out a loan on his behalf. Eilbes arranged a $30,000 loan for Hauer from the Bank, secured by Hauer’s mutual fund. The Bank’s vice president, Schroeder, never met Hauer before the closing. During his due diligence, Hauer’s financial consultant warned Schroeder that Hauer needed the fund’s income to live on and advised against the loan. Schroeder conceded it was possible the consultant also mentioned Hauer’s brain damage. The Bank approved the loan, which Hauer immediately gave to Eilbes. When the loan matured, Hauer sued to void the contract, and the Bank counterclaimed for the $30,000. A jury found Hauer lacked the mental capacity to enter the contract and that the Bank failed to act in good faith.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: When a contract is voided due to a party’s mental incapacity, must that party restore the consideration if the other party lacked good faith and had reason to know of the incapacity?
No. The judgment voiding the loan and relieving Hauer of the obligation Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehend
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
When a contract is voided due to a party’s mental incapacity, must that party restore the consideration if the other party lacked good faith and had reason to know of the incapacity?
Conclusion
This case demonstrates that a party's good faith and knowledge are critical Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo
Legal Rule
A contract entered into by a mentally incompetent person is voidable. While Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culp
Legal Analysis
The court first established that mental incompetence is a basis for a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisci
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A contract with a mentally incompetent person is voidable. - Generally,