Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Knox v. Knox, 25 N.W.2d 225.

73 citing documents.

Ritalka, Inc., Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Ritalka argues that this case is analogous because a constructive 12 trust “is imposed as a remedy to prevent unjust enrichment.” d 225, 229 (Minn. 1946) (emphasis omitted).
In re the Estate of Trisha J Ingersoll a/k/a Trisha Jolee Ingersoll, Trisha Ingersoll f/k/a Trisha Offerman, Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A constructive trust may be appropriate when there is fraud or wrongdoing and also in circumstances when “it would be morally wrong for the property holder to 4 retain the property.” Savich, d at 751 (quotation omitted); (“[W]here a party obtains the legal title to land by fraud or bad faith, or by taking advantage of confidential or fiduciary relations, or in any other unconscientious manner, so that he cannot justly retain the property, equity will impress a constructive trust upon it in favor
Eric Aaron, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Estate of: Joseph Rocco Figliuzzi, Minn. 2022
Knox v. Knox , ; see also Wilcox v. Nelson , (“A constructive trust is a remedial device by which the holder of legal title is held to be a trustee for the benefit of another who in good conscience is entitled to the beneficial interest.”).
In re the Estate of Clara Mae Murphy Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Estate of Clara Mae Murphy Minn. Ct. App. 2017
DECISION A constructive trust is “purely a creation of equity designed to provide a remedy for the prevention of unjust enrichment where a person holding property is under a duty to convey it to another to whom it belongs.” Knox v. Knox, 222 Minn. 477, 481
CSM Equities, LLC v. Woodland Village Investments Limited Partnership Minn. Ct. App. 2016
CSM Equities, LLC v. Woodland Village Investments Limited Partnership Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A constructive trust is “purely a creation of equity designed to provide a remedy for the prevention of unjust enrichment where a person holding property is under a duty to convey it to another to whom it justly belongs.” Knox v. Knox, 222 Minn. 477, 481
Mark W. Tibbals v. Kerry G. Tibbals Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Mark W. Tibbals v. Kerry G. Tibbals Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Freundschuh v. 5 Freundschuh, (citing Knox v. Knox, 222 Minn. 477, 481, ).
Bond v. Commissioner of Revenue 691 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 2005
Bond v. Commissioner of Revenue 691 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 2005
Knox v. Knox, 222 Minn. 477, 488
Freundschuh v. Freundschuh 559 N.W.2d 706 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Freundschuh v. Freundschuh 559 N.W.2d 706 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(citations omitted); see Knox v. Knox, 222 Minn. 477, 484 , -30 (1946) (holding section 501.07 has no application to constructive trust).
In Re Estate of Vittorio 546 N.W.2d 751 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In Re Estate of Vittorio 546 N.W.2d 751 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Knox v. Knox, 222 Minn. 477, 482 , (quoting Restatement Restitution, § 160 (1937)).
Estate of Spiess v. Schumm 448 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Estate of Spiess v. Schumm 448 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Knox v. Knox, 222 Minn. 477, 481
In Re Estate of Farley 397 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In Re Estate of Farley 397 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Knox v. Knox, 222 Minn. 477, 481
Timmer v. Gray 395 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Timmer v. Gray 395 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
8, 1984) (unjust enrichment action based on considerations of moral wrongness); Cady, 283 Minn. at 109-10 , d at 361 (1969) (unjust enrichment action based on failure of consideration, fraud or mistake); Knox v. Knox, 222 Minn. 477, 482 , (unjust enrichment action based on uncon-scientious retention of property).
Fredin v. Farmers State Bank of Mountain Lake 384 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Fredin v. Farmers State Bank of Mountain Lake 384 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(citing Knox v. Knox, 222 Minn. 477, 481 , ).
Wilson v. Skogerboe 379 N.W.2d 696 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Wilson v. Skogerboe 379 N.W.2d 696 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
ANALYSIS I. A constructive trust is “a creation of equity designed to provide a remedy for the prevention of unjust enrichment where a person holding property is under a duty to convey it to another to whom it justly belongs.” Knox v. Knox, 222 Minn. 477, 481
Mjolsness v. Mjolsness 363 N.W.2d 839 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Mjolsness v. Mjolsness 363 N.W.2d 839 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
“The court must only be persuaded by clear and convincing evidence that the imposition of a constructive trust is justified to prevent unjust enrichment.” (citing Knox v. Knox 222 Minn. 477, 481 , ).
Rock v. Hennepin Broadcasting Associates, Inc. 359 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Rock v. Hennepin Broadcasting Associates, Inc. 359 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Minnesota courts have specifically found the constructive trust to be a flexible remedy, appropriate “where a person holding title to property is subject to an equitable duty to convey it to another on the ground that he would be unjustly enriched if he were permitted to retain it.” Knox v. Knox, 222 Minn. 477, 482 , (quoting Restatement of Restitution § 160, at 640-41 (1937)).
Stassen v. Stassen 351 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Stassen v. Stassen 351 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
See Knox v. Knox, 222 Minn. 477
In Re Estate of Eriksen 337 N.W.2d 671 Minn. 1983
In Re Estate of Eriksen 337 N.W.2d 671 Minn. 1983
Knox v. Knox, 222 Minn. 477, 481
Wright v. Wright 311 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1981
First National Bank of St. Paul v. Ramier 311 N.W.2d 502 Minn. 1981
Wright v. Wright 311 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1981
See Thompson v. Nesheim, 280 Minn. 407 , Knox v. Knox, 222 Minn. 477
Wohlrabe v. Pownell 307 N.W.2d 478 Minn. 1981
Matter of Will of Kelly 266 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 1978
Matter of Will of Kelly 266 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 1978
See, Knox v. Knox, 222 Minn. 477, 486
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co. 187 N.W.2d 133 Minn. 1971
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co. 187 N.W.2d 133 Minn. 1971
Knox v. Knox, 222 Minn. 477 , 25 N. W. (2d) 225 ; Kaehler v. Kaehler, 219 Minn. 536 , 18 N. W. (2d) 312 ; Ranum v. Swenson, 220 Minn. 170 , 19 N. W. (2d) 327 .
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Bierwerth 175 N.W.2d 136 Minn. 1970
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Bierwerth 175 N.W.2d 136 Minn. 1970
See, Knox v. Knox, 222 Minn. 477 , 25 N. W. (2d) 225 ; 58 Am.
Thompson v. Nesheim 159 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1968
Thompson v. Nesheim 159 N.W.2d 910 Minn. 1968
They concede that Knox v. Knox, 222 Minn. 477 , 25 N. W. (2d) 225 , cited by the trial court in a memorandum accompanying its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment “states the law in this state governing the imposition of constructive trusts.” Their only quarrel with the Knox case, they say, is with its application to the case at bar.
Theis v. Theis 135 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 1965
Theis v. Theis 135 N.W.2d 740 Minn. 1965
See, Knox v. Knox, 222 Minn. 477 , 25 N. W. (2d) 225 ; Brennan v. Carroll, 260 Minn. 521 , 111 N. W. (2d) 229 ; Marquette Appliances, Inc. v. Economy Food Plan, Inc. 256 Minn. 169 , 97 N. W. (2d) 652 ; Gethsemane Lutheran Church v. Zacho, 253 Minn. 469 , 92 N. W. (2d) 905 .
Schwartz v. Wenger 124 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1963
Schwartz v. Wenger 124 N.W.2d 489 Minn. 1963
The judicial decisions, which are few, generally agree.” 7 Knox v. Knox, 222 Minn. 477, 485 , 25 N. W. (2d) 225, 230 .

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by