Legal Opinion

Sieve v. Rosar

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided July 11, 2000No. C7-00-50PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

G. BARRY ANDERSON.

Appellant Philip Rosar challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent Maynard Sieve. Rosar argues that Sieve did not comply with the relevant statutes regarding redemption from a mortgage foreclosure. We agree that the district court erred by concluding that Sieve substantially complied with the requirements of the redemption statute and, therefore, we reverse. But, because the district court did not reach Sieve’s equitable estoppel claim, we remand the case to permit the court to make findings on that issue.

FACTS

In September 1997,…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Cooper v. FrenchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
  2. Fabio v. BellomoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
  3. Minneapolis Public Housing Authority v. LorSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999
  4. Lunning v. Land O'LakesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  5. Tinkcom v. LewisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1874

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. TCM PROPERTIES, LLC v. GundersonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006
  2. TIMELINE, LLC v. Williams Holdings 3, LLCCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2005
  3. C & M Real Estate Services, Inc. v. ThondikulamCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2007
  4. Real Estate Equity Strategies, LLC v. Internal Revenue ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2008

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API