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In Maday v. Grathwohl, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that a written “Manure Easement” superseded a prior oral promise to deliver all manure to a neighboring farm.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 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 (covered extensively by MN Litigator here), 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!
We buy homeowner’s insurance to protect our homes against perils. So, many homeowners are surprised to learn that their policies may exclude things that they believed were covered. For instance, many policies exclude water damage caused by defective construction. Such was the case in Friedberg v. Chubb & Son, Inc.
This blog has closely followed the saga of Amber Engquist, the 9-year old who was attacked by her friend’s black lab. Amber had reached out to hug Bruno. When Bruno growled, Amber backed away. That’s when Bruno attacked. As Amber’s case wound its way through Minnesota’s court system, the same question has persisted: Did Amber provoke the dog? In Engquist v. Loyas, the Minnesota Supreme Court has finally given its answer.
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?
When it rains, it pours. And, when your neighbor’s field dike doesn’t work properly, it floods your farm. In a new decision, the Eighth Circuit addressed this important question: How long can I wait to sue my neighbor for flooding my property? The Answer: 2 years. Continue reading
Seth Leventhal, executive editor of this blog, has been following the saga of Vincent Ofor for quite some time. Followers of this blog will recall that Ofor sought to void a mortgage by arguing that his signature on a power of attorney was not properly notarized. He signed in NYC, but his signature was notarized in MN. Ofor lost on summary judgment, when the district court said that the notarial oops was “No harm, no foul.” So, Ofor was no doubt thrilled when he learned that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals was willing to entertain his appeal. What a let down he got in the end! Continue reading
The Minnesota Court of Appeals has rejected the “Blame the Lawyer” argument. In Remodeling Dimensions, Inc. v. Integrity Mutual Insurance Co., a contractor argued that its attorney’s representation was so bad as to constitute a breach of the insurer’s obligation to appoint counsel. As Shakespeare said, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”
If you are among the many Minnesota lawyers who still believe that referral fees are forbidden, it’s time to wake up! Referral fees are alive and well in Minnesota, and permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct to boot.