Hollom v. Carey
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SEDGWICK, Judge.
This appeal arises from the consolidated trial of two cases. The district court ruled that appellant, Joyce Carey, was unlawfully detaining property from respondent, Benny Hollom, and that appellant’s claim for damages was barred by Minn.Stat. §§ 513.075 and 513.076 (Cohabitation, property and financial arrangements; Necessity of contract). We affirm.
FACTS
The relationship between Carey and Hol-lom began in May of 1970, when they met and began to date. Carey moved in with Hollom in February of 1973. The couple lived in a house that Hollom had purchased on a contract for…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- City of Minnetonka v. CarlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- In Re Estate of EriksenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
- Tamarac Inn, Inc. v. City of Long LakeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
3Cited by20 opinions
- Marriage of Cummings v. CummingsCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
- Zaremba v. CliburnCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1997
- Tourville v. KowarschCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
- Marriage of Corwin v. CorwinCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
- Mechura v. McQuillanCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1988
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.