Daniel M. Eaton
Dan Eaton has been an attorney at Christensen Law Office since 2009. Since then, he has prevailed or obtained favorable settlements in several real estate fraud cases, business disputes, construction matters, and cases under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (known as “RESPA”). Dan’s goal with every client is to provide efficient and effective representation. He is meticulous in is work, fights hard for his clients, and seeks practical resolutions to cases whenever possible.
Dan regularly represents businesses and individuals in real estate, business, and consumer law matters. Dan’s real estate practice includes representing clients in disputes over real estate sales, financing issues, and construction defects, as well representing buyers or sellers in real estate transactions. His consumer law practice focuses on representing homeowners facing mortgage servicing disputes and wrongful foreclosures. Dan’s business practice includes corporate formations, asset sales, and providing general advice and representation in day-to-day legal matters.
Prior to entering the business world, Dan worked as an instructor for the National Outdoor Leadership School.
Dan received his J.D. from University of St. Thomas School of Law, graduating Cum Laude, and his B.A. from University of Montana, graduating with Honors.
Dan enjoys competing in and training for triathlons, as well as skiing, canoeing, backpacking, and any other activity that will get him outside with family and friends.
Membership & Affiliations
Awards & Recognition
Minnesota State Bar Association Certified Real Property Specialist
2019 – 2022
Super Lawyers Rising Star
2014 – 2018
Cases and Orders
Gate City Bank v. Jenni, No. 11-CV-20-1294, Minn. Dist. Ct. 9th Dist., June 30, 2022. Trial verdict of $421,000, including $100,000 in punitive damages, representing homeowner against builder where builder had stolen homeowner’s money designated for rebuilding home after insurance claim.
Davis v. EagleBank, A21-1417, (Minn. Ct. App. June 20, 2022.) At appeal, successfully reversed dismissal of out-of-state parties due to personal jurisdiction on claims by loan guarantor against lender and defaulting borrower after lender foreclosed on guarantor’s property in Minnesota.
Krawczyk v. Aberle, 02-CV-6400 (Minn. Dist. Ct. 10th Dist., Jul. 7, 2020). Trial verdict of $151,000 on behalf of investor against investment manager for manager’s breach of fiduciary duty and civil theft. Successfully defended post-judgment motions and appeal.
All State Construction v. Vo, No. 27-CV-19-4703 (Minn. Dist. Ct. 4th. Dist. Oct. 24, 2019). Trial verdict defending claims against homeowner by contractor.
Madison v. Hooper, No. 02-CV-18-4278 (Minn. Dist. Ct. 2nd Dist. Oct. 25, 2018). Successfully defended appeal of arbitration award in home buyer disclosure case.
Althaus v. Cenlar Agency, Inc., 17-CV–445-JRT-DTS, 2017 WL 4536074 (D. Minn. Oct. 10, 2017). Claims arose from servicer’s failure to pay borrower’s property taxes on time from escrow account. Court denied servicer’s motion to dismiss, finding that borrower had provided a basis for claims against the servicer under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and Minnesota’s mortgage servicing laws.
Wirtz v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 185 F.Supp.3d 1140 (D. Minn. 2016) and 2016 WL 5402742 (D. Minn. Sept. 26, 2016). Client awarded $50,962.55 in damages and attorney fees against Specialized Loan Servicing due to mortgage servicer’s failure to properly investigate and respond when borrower notified his servicer of errors related to payments on his mortgage loan.
Roloff v. v. Transform Design Solutions, LLC, No. 27-CV-16-3716 (Minn. Dist. Ct. 4th Dist. June 14, 2016). Client awarded $36,000.00 against home improvement contractor due to contractor’s failure to timely complete home remodeling project and due to defects in work completed by contractor.
Quito v. Jaan Properties LLC, No. 27-CV-14-10131 (Minn. Dist. Ct. 4th Dist. Jan. 20, 2015). Client awarded $27,075.00 against home improvement contractor when contractor accepted payment for home remodeling project and but failed to commence work.
Fox Valley Electronic Design LLC v. Sybaritic Inc., Case No. 27-CV-16-1674 (Minn. Dist. Ct. 4th Dist. May 23, 2018). Trial verdict granting damages for breach of contract in commercial production dispute.
Banks v. Kondaur Capital Corporation (In re Banks), 457 B.R. 9 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2011) holding that a mortgage lender could not proceed with foreclosure of a homeowner in bankruptcy when the lender did not have proof of possession of the promissory note and proper assignment of mortgage.
Koller v. Lakes Area Home Buyers, Case. No. 62-CV-10-6101 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Nov. 16, 2011) and Koller v. Hoffman (In re Hoffman), 475 B.R. 692 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2012) holding that real estate property was returned to the seller in a seller-financed transaction where the buyer structured the sale to appear to an unsophisticated seller that the financing was secured by a mortgage when, in fact, it was not. When the buyer later filed bankruptcy, the debt owed to the seller was deemed non-dischargeable due to the buyer’s fraud in the transaction.
Nelson v. Faithful Financial, LLC, Civ. No. 10-3405 (D. Minn. Feb. 10, 2011) holding that homeowners were not barred by res judicata from pursuing fraud claims against a mortgage lender even though the homeowners, who had previously filed bankruptcy, discovered the fraud after Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan confirmation and bankruptcy discharge. After the homeowners survived summary judgment on 16 of 22 claims against the lender, including fraud, the parties settled.
Vdakes v. Mansion on Mt. Curve, Case No. 27-CV-HC-10-669 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Feb. 16, 2010) holding that stay of eviction was necessary when tenant sued landlord over claims including breach of the lease agreement and landlord then attempted to evict tenant.
Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Chakolis, Case No. 27-CV-O8-29096 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Dec. 12, 2011) holding that the statute of limitations on a “retail installment contract” for financing an automobile purchase was limited to four years because the transaction qualifies as a sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. Creditor’s case against the debtor was dismissed because the creditor did not commence its case until more than four years after the debtor made her last payment toward the contract.
Aarnio v. Village Bank, Case No. 13-CV-11-773 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Oct. 22, 2012) holding that a mortgage, alleged to be obtained without the property owner’s knowledge due to fraud, was void because the lender recorded the mortgage after the property was conveyed to a contractor to secure a construction loan.