Mechura v. McQuillan
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
KALITOWSKI, Judge.
This appeal is from a trial court judgment holding appellant has no legal or equitable interest in the property at issue because no written contract existed between appellant and respondent pursuant to Minnesota cohabitation statutes. See Minn.Stat. §§ 513.075 and 513.076 (1986). Because no written contract exists, all claims by appellant are barred by the cohabitation statutes. Affirmed.
FACTS
The parties met in March of 1984, began dating and later decided to live together. The house, which is the main subject matter of this case, was purchased in October 1984. Title…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- In Re Estate of EriksenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
- Hollom v. CareyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
- Hilton v. NelsenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
- Tourville v. KowarschCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
- Moore v. SordahlCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
3Cited by6 opinions
- Hewitt v. Apollo GroupCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992
- Obert v. DahlCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1998
- Roatch v. PueraCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995
- In Re Estate of PalmenCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1998
- Hewitt v. Apollo GroupCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.