Legal Opinion
Bly v. Bublitz
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided December 24, 1990No. C1-90-1661Published
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
NORTON, Judge.
Appellants commenced this action to determine their rights under a real estate contract for deed and a related modification agreement. Appellants, respondents, James and Audrey Bublitz (Bublitzes), and respondents Brian and Georgianne Gen-smer (Gensmers) filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court concluded that a provision in an agreement that appellants seek to enforce is void because it is contrary to Minn.Stat. § 559.21, subd. 4 (1986), and that even if the agreement was valid, appellants did not properly exercise the option granted them by the agreement.
FACTS
O…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- A. J. Chromy Construction Co. v. Commercial Mechanical Services, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- Conley v. DowningSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- Henry v. HutchinsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
- Odegaard v. MoeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1962
- William B. Tanner Co. v. Waseca-Owatonna BroadcastingDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1982