Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marr v. Bradley, 59 N.W.2d 331.

31 citing documents.

First & First, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company v. Chadco of Duluth, LLC, a Minnesota ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
First & First, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company v. Chadco of Duluth, LLC, a Minnesota ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(explaining that after a party properly 9 files and records a notice of lis pendens affecting real property, a purchaser of the property takes it “subject to the final disposition of the pending cause and is bound by the decision which may be entere
Laurie J. Stangel, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
After a party files and records a notice of lis pendens affecting real property, a subsequent purchaser of the property takes it “subject to the final disposition of the pending case and is bound by the decision which may be entered against the party from whom he derives his title, even though he is not a party to such action.” see Minn. Stat. § 557.02 (2022) (stating that a notice of lis pendens provides “notice to purchasers and encumbrancers of the rights and equities of the party filing the
The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificateholders of … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificateholders of … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Marr v. Bradley, 239 Minn. 503, 509, (“[T]he contract to convey a homestead executed by one spouse but not joined in by the other is wholly void and that the buyer acquires no rights under it whatsoever.
HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Graikowski 812 N.W.2d 845 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Graikowski 812 N.W.2d 845 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
nn.1978) (holding, as to homestead portion of land, that contract for sale was void because contract was not executed by owner’s spouse); Anderson v. First Nat’l Bank of Pine City, 303 Minn. 408, 412-13 , (holding that nonsigning spouse was not equitably estopped from asserting invalidity of mortgage deed when he did not retain benefits of transaction); Marr v. Bradley, 239 Minn. 503, 509 , (stating that a contract to convey a homestead executed by only one spouse is wholly void and has no valid
Gores v. Schultz 777 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Gores v. Schultz 777 N.W.2d 522 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
St. Croix Development, LLC v. Gossman 735 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2007
St. Croix Development, LLC v. Gossman 735 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2007
A person who buys real property after a notice of lis pendens has been properly filed “takes subject to the final disposition of the pending cause [of action] and is bound by the decision which may be entered against the party from whom [the person] derives his [or her] title, even though he [or she] is not a party to such action.” Marr v. Bradley, 239 Minn. 503, 510
Mavco, Inc. v. Eggink 720 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Mattice v. Minnesota Property Insurance Placement 655 N.W.2d 336 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Chaney v. Minneapolis Community Development Agency 641 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Distinguished Chaney v. Minneapolis Community Development Agency 641 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See generally Marr v. Bradley, 239 Minn. 503 , Fingerhut Corp. v. Suburban Nat’l Bank
Fingerhut Corp. v. Suburban National Bank 460 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Fingerhut Corp. v. Suburban National Bank 460 N.W.2d 63 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
(citing Marr v. Bradley, 239 Minn. 503, 510 , ).
Nelson v. Nelson 415 N.W.2d 694 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Nelson v. Nelson 415 N.W.2d 694 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marr v. Bradley, 239 Minn. 503, 510
Park-Lake Car Wash, Inc. v. Springer 394 N.W.2d 505 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Park-Lake Car Wash, Inc. v. Springer 394 N.W.2d 505 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Relying on Marr v. Bradley, 239 Minn. 503 , Park-Lake additionally argues that since Propper Oil’s improvements were made with full knowledge of its lawsuit for specific performance, it would be inequitable to allow Springer and the Christys offset for improvements.
Howard, McRoberts & Murray v. Starry 382 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Howard, McRoberts & Murray v. Starry 382 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Marr v. Bradley, 239 Minn. 503, 510
Dvorak v. Maring 285 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 1979
Dvorak v. Maring 285 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 1979
E. g., Anderson v. First National Bank of Pine City, 303 Minn. 408, 411 , Marr v. Bradley, 239 Minn. 503, 507
Schultz v. Stiernagle 270 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1978
Schultz v. Stiernagle 270 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1978
Marr v. Bradley, 239 Minn. 503 , Weitzner v. Thingstad, 55 Minn. 244 , 56 N.W.
Anderson v. First Nat. Bank of Pine City 228 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 1975
Anderson v. First Nat. Bank of Pine City 228 N.W.2d 257 Minn. 1975
519.06 provides: “No contract between husband and wife relative to the real estate of either, or any interest therein, nor any power of attorney or other authority from the one to the other to convey real estate, or any interest therein, shall be valid; * * Both parties claim that Marr v. Bradley, 239 Minn. 503 , supports their respective position.
Hocking v. Guello 193 N.W.2d 634 Minn. 1972
Hocking v. Guello 193 N.W.2d 634 Minn. 1972
Marr v. Bradley, 239 Minn. 503