Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Hunter v. Anchor Bank, N.A.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided December 23, 2013No. A13-0515Published

1ConcurrenceSmith, Judge

Although I concur with the majority’s conclusion that the foreclosure sale does not comply with the requirements of section 580.08, I write separately because I believe that the sale should be voidable rather than void. The majority acknowledges a line of cases stating that foreclosure sales that fail to comply with statutory requirements for foreclosure sales renders the sales voidable rather than void, see, e.g., Willard, 42 Minn, at 478, 44 N.W. at 985; Clark, 51 Minn, at 447-48, 53 N.W. at 707; Phelps, 89 Minn, at 324, 94 N.W. at 1087, but it ultimately concludes that more recent…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Lee v. Fresenius Medical Care, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
  2. Beecroft v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2011
  3. Ofor v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2011

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

Powered by the Exa API