Legal Opinion
Gulbranson v. Gulbranson
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided June 30, 1987No. C1-87-192PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SEDGWICK, Judge.
Verdell Gulbranson seeks to recover $6,000 in rents paid to her ex-husband Keith on farmland she received as part of the couple’s dissolution. The trial court determined the action was barred by res judicata. We affirm.
FACTS
As part of the property division in a marriage dissolution, Verdell Gulbranson received the “Branstrom Farm,” which was being purchased on a contract for deed. The Gulbransons leased the farm at $6,000 a year. In an amended judgment in June, 1984, the trial court found that Keith Gul-branson made a $12,478.50 payment on the land, which was properly…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Commissioner v. SunnenSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- United States v. California & Oregon Land Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Hauser v. MealeySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
- Calder v. Michigan Ex Rel. Attorney GeneralSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Cook v. ConnollySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., P.L.L.P.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006
- Slusarchuk v. HoffDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2002
- Saint Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Central National Insurance Co. of OmahaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992