In Re Estate of Palmen

I respectfully dissent. I believe In re Estate of Eriksen, 337 N.W.2d 671, 674 (Minn.1983), is on point and controlling. As in the instant case, the female cohabitor in Eriksen wished only to preserve and protect her own property. Also, like in Eriksen, this cohab-itor invested in the cabin both by providing labor and cash. She is not claiming to be owed monies because of sexual favors.

The supreme court has interpreted the statutes to apply only when the “sole consideration for a contract between contracting parties is their ‘contemplation of sexual relations * * ⅜ out of wedlock.’ ” Id. at…