Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Romanchuk v. Plotkin, 9 N.W.2d 421.

45 citing documents.

Michael L. Pogreba v. Lorraine Pogreba, Janet Bowen Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Michael L. Pogreba v. Lorraine Pogreba, Janet Bowen Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(stating that “[r]ules of construction are mere aids in ascertaining the meanings of writings whether they are statues, contracts, deeds, or mortgages”).
Roger Dean Olson, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The factors for determining the existence of an implied easement on land that was previously united in ownership are (1) “ a separation of title,” (2) the use that gives rise to the easement has been “so long continued and apparent as to show that it was intended to be permanent ,” and (3) “the easement is necessary to the beneficial enjoyment of the land granted.”
In the Matter of the Petition of: Minn. Ct. App. 2023
James Aeshliman, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In the Matter of the Petition of Wells Fargo Bank, N. A., for an Order Determining the Boundary … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Petition of Wells Fargo Bank, N. A., for an Order Determining the Boundary … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
mplied by necessity is created when: (1) ‘there is a separation of title; (2) the use which gives rise to the easement shall have been so long continued and apparent as to show that it was intended to be permanent; and (3) that the easement is necessary to the beneficial enjoyment of the land granted.’” (quoting Romanchuk v. Plotkin, 215 Minn. 156, 160-61, ).
In the Matter of the Estate of: John Stanley LaSha Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Estate of: John Stanley LaSha Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Romanchuk v. Plotkin, 215 Minn. 156, 161, (“In Massachusetts and some other states a mortgage of real property conveys the title subject to defeasance upon payment of the mortgage debt or upon fulfillment of the conditions of the mortgage.
Business Bank v. Hanson 769 N.W.2d 285 Minn. 2009
Business Bank v. Hanson 769 N.W.2d 285 Minn. 2009
Airports Comm’n v. Noble, see also Ro-manchuk v. Plotkin, 215 Minn. 156, 164 , (noting that the same rules of construction apply to statutes, contracts, deeds, and mortgages).
Bolen v. Glass 737 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Bolen v. Glass 737 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Romanchuk v. Plotkin, 215 Minn. 156, 160-61 , (outlining elements of easement by implication of necessity).
Magnuson v. Cossette 707 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Magnuson v. Cossette 707 N.W.2d 738 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
An easement implied by necessity is created when “(1) [there is] a separation of title; (2) the use of which gives rise to the easement shall have been so long continued and apparent as to show that it was intended to be permanent; and (3) that the easement is necessary to the beneficial enjoyment of the land granted.” Romanchuk v. Plotkin, 215 Minn. 156, 160-61 , review denied (Minn. Sept.
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. v. Chojnacki 668 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. v. Chojnacki 668 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
See Romanchuk v. Plotkin, 215 Minn. 156, 161 , -25 (1943).
Lake George Park, L.L.C. v. IBM Mid-America Employees Federal Credit Union 576 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Lake George Park, L.L.C. v. IBM Mid-America Employees Federal Credit Union 576 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Romanchuk v. Plotkin, 215 Minn. 156, 160-61
Scherger v. Northern Natural Gas Co. 575 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 1998
Scherger v. Northern Natural Gas Co. 575 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 1998
While ambiguities in contract agreements are resolved against the drafter, see, e.g., Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Grounds & Assoc., Inc., “[generally, an easement grant is to be strictly construed against the grant- or.” Bergh, d at 26 (citing Romanchuk v. Plotkin, 215 Minn. 156, 160 , ).
Bergh & Misson Farms, Inc. v. Great Lakes Transmission Co. 565 N.W.2d 23 Minn. 1997
Bergh & Misson Farms, Inc. v. Great Lakes Transmission Co. 565 N.W.2d 23 Minn. 1997
Romanchuk v. Plotkin, 215 Minn. 156, 160
Lake George Park, L.L.C. v. Mathwig 548 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Lake George Park, L.L.C. v. Mathwig 548 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Romanchuk v. Plotkin, 215 Minn. 156, 160-61
Contested Cases of St. Otto's Home v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 437 N.W.2d 35 Minn. 1989
Contested Cases of St. Otto's Home v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 437 N.W.2d 35 Minn. 1989
Paul, Romanchuk v. Plotkin, 215 Minn. 156, 161 , -25 (1943) (mortgagee has only a lien on property securing the mortgage; the right of ownership and possession remains with the mortgagor).
Clark v. Galaxy Apartments 427 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Clark v. Galaxy Apartments 427 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Romanchuk v. Plotkin, 215 Minn. 156, 160-61
Rosendahl v. Nelson 408 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Rosendahl v. Nelson 408 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Romanchuk v. Plotkin, 215 Minn. 156, 160
Kleis v. Johnson 354 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Kleis v. Johnson 354 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Romanchuk v. Plotkin, 215 Minn. 156
LeNeau v. Nessett 194 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1972
LeNeau v. Nessett 194 N.W.2d 580 Minn. 1972
In Romanchuk v. Plotkin, 215 Minn. 156, 162 , we ruled on this requirement: “* * * ‘Apparent’ does not necessarily mean ‘visible.’ The weight of authority sustains the rule that ‘apparent’ means that indicia of the easement, a careful inspection of which by a person ordinarily conversant with the subject would have disclosed the
Werner v. Sample 107 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1961
Werner v. Sample 107 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1961
Jur., Easements, § 152: “* * * a person who purchases land with knowledge or with actual, constructive, or implied notice that it is burdened with an easement in favor of other property ordinarily takes the estate subject to the easement.” In Romanchuk v. Plotkin, 215 Minn. 156, 160 , 9 N. W. (2d) 421, 424 , this court said: “The doctrine of implied grant of easement is based upon the principle that where, during unity of title, the owner imposes an apparently permanent and obvious servitude on
Knopp v. Gutterman 102 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1960
Knopp v. Gutterman 102 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1960
No. 9, 207 Minn. 292 , ; Romanchuk v. Plotkin, 215 Minn. 156 , 9 N. W. (2d) 421 ; Gleason v. Geary, 214 Minn. 499 , 8 N. W. (2d) 808 ; Judd v. Landin, 211 Minn. 465 , 1 N. W. (2d) 861 .
Olson v. Mullen 68 N.W.2d 640 Minn. 1955
Olson v. Mullen 68 N.W.2d 640 Minn. 1955
The doctrine of implied easement is stated adequately in Romanchuk v. Plotkin, 215 Minn. 156, 160 , 9 N. W. (2d) 421, 424 , where we said: “The doctrine of implied grant of easement is based upon the principle that where, during unity of title, the owner imposes an apparently permanent and obvious servitude on one tenement in favor of another, which at the time of severance of title is in use and is reasonabl
Northern States Power Co. v. Oslund 51 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 1952
Northern States Power Co. v. Oslund 51 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 1952
4 See, Romanchuk v. Plotkin, 215 Minn. 156 , ; Burnquist v. Cook, 220 Minn. 48 , .
Simms v. Fagan 12 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1943
Simms v. Fagan 12 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1943
Paul, 89 Minn. 31 , ; Romanchuk v. Plotkin, 215 Minn. 156 , 9 N. W. (2d) 421 .