Legal Opinion
Hommerding v. Peterson
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided November 5, 1985No. C5-85-630PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SEDGWICK, Judge.
Appellants purchased property on a contract for deed from respondent Peterson. After the contract for deed was cancelled due to appellants’ default, appellants sued for fraudulent misrepresentation. Summary judgment was entered in favor of respondents. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellants purchased respondent Clarence Peterson’s home on October 28, 1981, on a contract for deed for the sum of $92,500. Appellants paid $15,500 as a down payment and agreed to make monthly payments of $800 commencing December 1, 1981, through November 1, 1986, with a balloon payment for the balance due…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Betlach v. Wayzata CondominiumSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
- Klein v. First Edina National BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1972
- Cady v. BushSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1969
- Ostendorf v. KenyonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
- Anderson v. DeLisleCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Southtown Plumbing, Inc. v. Har-Ned Lumber Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992
- Minnesota Power v. Armco, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1991
- Hernandez v. Sulier (In re Sulier)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · 2015
- Sletto v. Wesley Construction, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2007
- Thomey v. StewartCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.