Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Oehler v. Falstrom, 142 N.W.2d 581.

37 citing documents.

Alex Sajady, et al., Appellants, vs. Tracy Sajady, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Alex Sajady, et al., Appellants, vs. Tracy Sajady, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2025
David Carl Hepfl v. Jodine Patrice Meadowcroft 9 N.W.3d 567 Minn. 2024
David Carl Hepfl v. Jodine Patrice Meadowcroft 9 N.W.3d 567 Minn. 2024
ikely because Meadowcroft testified that she believed the cabin was a gift, the district D-4 court also cited numerous cases on the law of gifts when stating, that “Defendant has the burden of proof [to show that the plaintiff intended something as a gift], which can only be established by clear and convincing evidence,” (d 581 (Minn. 1966)).
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Joint Revocable Trust Agreement of John N. Charais and ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Joint Revocable Trust Agreement of John N. Charais and ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
5 The elements of a gift are “(1) delivery, (2) intention to make a gift on the part of the donor, and (3) absolute disposition by [the donor] of the thing which he intends to give to another.”
In re the Marriage of: Donald Floyd Deeble, Jr. v. Hayley Elizabeth Espelien, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Marriage of: Donald Floyd Deeble, Jr. v. Hayley Elizabeth Espelien, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Marriage of: Kevin James Stanton, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Denise M. Tessman, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Muschik v. Conner-Muschik 920 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Muschik v. Conner-Muschik 920 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Oehler v. Falstrom , 273 Minn. 453 , , 585 (1966).
Anand Kannan, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Oehler v. Falstrom , 281 Minn. 561, 563, Oehler v. Falstrom, 273 Minn. 453, 454-57, -85 (1966).
In re the Estate of: Bernie E. Pederson, Decedent. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Estate of: Bernie E. Pederson, Decedent. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A valid inter vivos gift must be delivered “‘with intent to vest title in the donee, and without reserving any right to reclaim the property.’” d 139, 143 (Minn. App. 1990) (quoting Oehler v. Falstrom, 273 Minn. 453, 456, d 581, 585 (1966)).
George Reilly, Trustee of the Nathan L. Bentson 1993 Irrevocable Trust v. Michael J. Antonello, and Michael J. … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
George Reilly, Trustee of the Nathan L. Bentson 1993 Irrevocable Trust v. Michael J. Antonello, and Michael J. … Minn. Ct. App. 2014
We recognize that this fact question may include legal elements, such as those arising from the common law, see Oehler v. Falstrom, 273 Minn. 453, 456–57, (defining the legal elements of a common-law gift as delivery, intention to make a gift, and absolute disposition of the gifted property), but even so, the district court should decide it first.
Weber v. Hvass 626 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Weber v. Hvass 626 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
A gift requires that the donor “deliver the property to the donee, or to someone for him, with intent to vest title in the donee, and without reserving any right to reclaim the property.” Oehler v. Falstrom, 273 Minn. 453 , (emphasis added).
Marriage of Olsen v. Olsen 562 N.W.2d 797 Minn. 1997
Marriage of Olsen v. Olsen 562 N.W.2d 797 Minn. 1997
Oehler v. Falstrom, 273 Minn. 453, 456-57
Barnier v. Wells 476 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Barnier v. Wells 476 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Oehler v. Falstrom, 273 Minn. 453, 456-57
In Re Estate of LeBrun 458 N.W.2d 139 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
In Re Estate of LeBrun 458 N.W.2d 139 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
II The elements of a gift inter vivos are delivery of the property, “with intent to vest title in the donee, and without reserving any right to reclaim the property.” Oehler v. Falstrom, 273 Minn. 453, 456 , ().
Marriage of McCulloch v. McCulloch 435 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Marriage of McCulloch v. McCulloch 435 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
(citing Oehler v. Falstrom, 273 Minn. 453, 456-57 , aff'd.
Cooke v. Belzer 413 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Cooke v. Belzer 413 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Oehler v. Falstrom, 273 Minn. 453, 456-57 , aff’d after remand, 281 Minn. 561
Kiecker v. Estate of Kiecker 404 N.W.2d 881 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Kiecker v. Estate of Kiecker 404 N.W.2d 881 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Oehler v. Falstrom, 273 Minn. 453, 456-57
In Re Estate of Lobe 348 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Re Estate of Lobe 348 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
ANALYSIS Smith alleges the trial court erred in finding that the money he allegedly gave Lobe was a gift rather than a loan, contending that once he “demonstrated that he advanced the funds to decedent [Lobe], those funds are presumed to be a loan unless and until the recipient can, by clear and convincing evidence, show that a gift was intended”, citing Oehler v. Falstrom, 273 Minn. 453 , affirmed after remand, 281 Minn. 561
Oehler v. Falstrom 160 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 1968
Oehler v. Falstrom 160 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 1968
The facts are fully stated in Oehler v. Falstrom, 273 Minn. 453 , 142 N. W. (2d) 581 , wherein we remanded the case for determination of fact issues relating to whether execution of a gift was established by the required degree of proof.
Johnson v. Trnka 154 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 1967
Johnson v. Trnka 154 N.W.2d 185 Minn. 1967
607.01; Oehler v. Falstrom, 273 Minn. 453, 461 , 142 N. W. [2d] 581, 587) and determines that the costs and disbursements incurred shall be shared equally by the parties.