Update (Jan. 27, 2012): On November 22, 2011, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied Naomi Farr’s petition for review. Looks like, for better or worse, this one is on the books.
Original Post (Sep. 22, 2011):
In a new published decision, Dimke v. Farr, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has called into question the effectiveness of the statutory process for cancelling residential purchase agreements. Minnesota’s statutory cancellation process afforded sellers three primary benefits: (1) no need for court, (2) finality, and (3) certainty. Has this new decision thrown these benefits out the window?
Oral promises are, by their nature, fleeting and unreliable. This is apparently even more true when the promise is about manure.
In Maday v. Grathwohl, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that a written “Manure Easement” superseded a prior oral promise to deliver all manure to a neighboring farm. As a result, the neighboring farm that wants more manure is, quite literally, SOL.
The one thing I learned in high school is that it’s easier to be a part of a crowd than to stand alone. For a while, I thought I might have been blawging into the wilderness. But, alas, my efforts have been rewarded. Turfwars has been named one of Minnesota’s Top 25 Blawgs by MSBA’s Legal News Digest and Practice Blawg. Here’s what the editors had to say about Turfwars:
Turf Wars caught our attention because blogger Rob Shainess’ posts offer compelling titles and lead paragraphs. It makes the reader want to read the posts which is a sign of a good blog. The posts are also entertaining.
OMG, did they say that my posts…about the law…are entertaining. I couldn’t really ask for a better compliment.
Click here to read the full article and here to check out the other honorees.
The best horror films share a common feature: The killer can always come back from the dead. The Minnesota Supreme Court recently decided that the same is not true of contribution and indemnity claims arising out of construction defects. In In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the 2007 amendments to Minn. Stat. 541.051 did not retroactively revive an already extinguished claim for contribution.
In Javinsky-Wenzesk v. St. Louis Park, the City of St. Louis park gave a couple landlords an ultimatum: Either evict a long-term tenant with a valid lease or lose your rental license. The landlords sued the city, seeking an injunction. While the legal issue (Whether the city’s ultimatum violated the landlords’ due process rights) is interesting and novel, the underlying facts of this case are not to be missed. It is truly rare to find a case that involves theft, drugs, and eviction!
Continue reading »
Stay Connected
