Legal Opinion

Stromberg v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided May 17, 1988No. C0-87-2158PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

NIERENGARTEN, Judge.

Appellants contend the district court erred by concluding real estate documents could not be altered by parol evidence and granting summary judgment against appellants’ equitable claims. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.

FACTS

Appellants Richard and Jean Smith entered into a “net” listing agreement with respondent Clarence Kemp under the terms of which the buyer would make a $50,000 cash down payment, the Smiths would “net” $850,000 from the sale of their apartment complex property, and Kemp’s brokerage fees would consist of “the dollar amount in excess…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Betlach v. Wayzata CondominiumSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
  2. Nord v. HerreidSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
  3. Sauter Ex Rel. Benson v. SauterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1955
  4. Bussard v. College of Saint Thomas, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1972
  5. Olson v. PenkertSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1958

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Johnson v. CossSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Apple Valley Red-E-Mix, Inc. v. Mills-Winfield Engineering Sales, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989
  3. Homer v. GuzulaitisIndiana Court of Appeals · 1991
  4. Core and Main, LP v. Ron McCabeCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2023
  5. Core and Main, LP v. McCabeDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2021

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

Powered by the Exa API