Legal Opinion

Bruggeman v. Jerry's Enterprises, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided October 29, 1998No. C9-98-212PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

CRIPPEN, Judge.

Appellant sellers challenge the trial court’s summary judgment, asserting that the merger doctrine does not apply to a provision in an option agreement that permitted them to repurchase the property if the buyer failed to develop it within two years. Because appellants’ repurchase right, which could only be claimed two years after the closing, was both a condition subsequent and collateral to the executed deed, we conclude thát the agreement does not merge with the deed, and we reverse and remand for a determination of whether the property was developed.

FACTS

In February…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Cooper v. FrenchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
  2. Mahowald v. Minnesota Gas Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
  3. Knight v. McCainMississippi Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Land Reclamation, Inc. v. Riverside CorporationOregon Supreme Court · 1972
  5. Hubachek v. Estate of BrownSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Bruggeman v. Jerry's Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1999

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

Powered by the Exa API