Legal Opinion
Manderfeld v. Krovitz
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided November 14, 1995No. C0-95-858PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
PARKER, Judge.
The trial court ordered reformation of an option contract based upon jury findings of fraud and mutual mistake. The contract was reformed by adding the name of a party’s spouse/joint tenant despite the fact that she was not a party to the agreement and never consented to it. We reverse.
FACTS
In April 1983, James Manderfeld and Sam Krovitz executed an option agreement regarding commercial property that Krovitz was planning to acquire and Manderfeld was planning to lease. Unknown to Mr. Mander-feld, Sam Krovitz and his wife, Frances, acquired the property as joint tenants in…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Thiele v. StichSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Alholm v. WiltSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
- Cameron v. EvansSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1954
- Dynamic Air, Inc. v. BlochCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1993
- Nichols v. Shelard National BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Cascades Development of Minnesota, LLC v. National Specialty InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2012
- Economides v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning AdjustmentDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2008
- Abrahamson v. AbrahamsonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2000
- Domtar, Inc. v. Niagara Fire Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1996
- Heim v. LeeCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2002
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.