Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Nichols v. Shelard National Bank, 294 N.W.2d 730.

62 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Gartner, d at 398 (noting that “a person who signs a contract may not avoid it on the ground that [s]he did not read it or thought its terms to 11 be different”); see also Nichols v. Shelard Nat’l Bank, (declining to reform a contract and noting that, “had [complainants] read the documents before they signed them, their mistake as to the contents would have been discovered before they suffered any harm”).
Sandra Weise v. Alan M. Powell Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Sandra Weise v. Alan M. Powell Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See, e.g., SCI Minn. Funeral Servs., (contracting to sell stock in a cemetery association); Nichols v. Shelard Nat’l Bank, (contracting for a mortgage on a home); (contracting to retain an attorney); S. Minn. Mun.
Russel D. Stueckrath, et al., Plaintiffs, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Ivan cites Nichols v. Shelard National Bank and argues that a district court must “first determine[] whether a prima facie case has been made sufficient to invoke the consideration of equitable relief in the first place.”
Carol Vanerka Stephens, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
at 865 (quoting Nichols v. Shelard Nat’l Bank, ).
Premium Plant Services, Inc., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Nichols v. Shelard Nat’l Bank
Gary A. Meiners v. Kruckow Companies, LLC, and third party v. Anthony R. Hammell, third party Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Gary A. Meiners v. Kruckow Companies, LLC, and third party v. Anthony R. Hammell, third party Minn. Ct. App. 2015
11 Nichols v. Shelard Nat’l Bank
North Star Mutual Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Jacob Quernemoen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2014
North Star Mutual Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Jacob Quernemoen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2014
13 Nichols v. Shelard Nat’l Bank
SCI Minnesota Funeral Services, Inc. v. Washburn-McReavy Funeral Corp. 795 N.W.2d 855 Minn. 2011
SCI Minnesota Funeral Services, Inc. v. Washburn-McReavy Funeral Corp. 795 N.W.2d 855 Minn. 2011
A party seeking reformation must prove that: “(1) there was a valid agreement between the parties expressing their real intentions; (2) the written instrument failed to express the real intentions of the parties; and (3) this failure was due to a mutual mistake of the parties, or a unilateral mistake accompanied by fraud or inequitable conduct by the other party.” Nichols v. Shelard Nat’l Bank
SCI Minnesota Funeral Services, Inc. v. Washburn-McReavy Funeral Corp. 779 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
SCI Minnesota Funeral Services, Inc. v. Washburn-McReavy Funeral Corp. 779 N.W.2d 865 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Generally, in order to obtain reformation based on mutual mistake, “it is necessary that both parties agree as to the content of the document but that somehow through a scrivener’s error the document does not reflect that agreement.” Nichols v. Shelard Nat’l Bank, see also Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, -98 (Minn.App.2009); -19 (Minn.App.1985).
State v. Rodriguez 775 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Rodriguez 775 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“Absent ambiguity, fraud, or misrepresentation, a mistake of one of the parties alone as to the subject matter of the contract is no ground for rescission.” N. Star Ctr., Inc. v. Sibley Bowl, Inc., 295 Minn. 424, 426 , see also Nichols v. Shelard Nat’l Bank, (stating that a unilateral mistake does not warrant rescission of a contract absent “fraud or inequitable conduct by the other party”).
Premier Bank v. Becker Development, LLC 767 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Premier Bank v. Becker Development, LLC 767 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
A mutual mistake occurs when “both parties agree as to the [intended] content of the document but that somehow through a scrivener’s error the document does not reflect that agreement.” Nichols v. Shelard Nat’l Bank
Onvoy, Inc. v. Allete, Inc. 736 N.W.2d 611 Minn. 2007
Onvoy, Inc. v. Allete, Inc. 736 N.W.2d 611 Minn. 2007
Nichols v. Shelard Nat’l Bank
Alpha Real Estate Co. of Rochester v. Delta Dental Plan of Minnesota 664 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2003
Alpha Real Estate Co. of Rochester v. Delta Dental Plan of Minnesota 664 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2003
Nichols v. Shelard Nat’l Bank
Leamington Co. v. Nonprofits' Ins. Ass'n 615 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 2000
Leamington Co. v. Nonprofits' Ins. Ass'n 615 N.W.2d 349 Minn. 2000
formed by the courts if it can be proved that: “(1) there was a valid agreement between the parties expressing their real intentions; (2) the written instrument failed to express the real intentions of the parties; and (3) this failure was due to a mutual mistake of the parties, or a unilateral mistake accompanied by fraud or inequitable conduct by the other party.” Nichols v. Shelard Nat’l Bank
Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A. v. Ode 615 N.W.2d 91 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A. v. Ode 615 N.W.2d 91 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
se the mortgage — if three elements are present: (1) there was a valid agreement between the parties expressing their real intentions; (2) the written instrument failed to express the real intentions of the parties; and (3) this failure was due to a mutual mistake of the parties, or a unilateral mistake accompanied by fraud or inequitable conduct by the other party- Nichols v. Shelard Nat’l Bank, (citations omitted).
Manderfeld v. Krovitz 539 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Manderfeld v. Krovitz 539 N.W.2d 802 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
( Fritz v. Fritz, 94 Minn. 264 , 102 N.W.
Reitzner v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 510 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Reitzner v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 510 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Nichols v. Shelard Nat’l Bank
Garrick v. Northland Insurance Co. 460 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Garrick v. Northland Insurance Co. 460 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Nichols v. Shelard Nat’l Bank
Mikulay v. Home Indemnity Co. 449 N.W.2d 464 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Mikulay v. Home Indemnity Co. 449 N.W.2d 464 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
(reformation of a written instrument may be granted only where there is a valid agreement between the parties expressing their real intentions).
Bogatzki v. Hoffman 430 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Bogatzki v. Hoffman 430 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Nolan v. Stuebner 429 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Nolan v. Stuebner 429 N.W.2d 918 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Centennial Insurance Co. v. Zylberberg 422 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Centennial Insurance Co. v. Zylberberg 422 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
H.J. Kramer Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Scharmer 386 N.W.2d 742 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
H.J. Kramer Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Scharmer 386 N.W.2d 742 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Brunsoman v. Lexington-Silverwood 385 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Brunsoman v. Lexington-Silverwood 385 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
A written instrument can be reformed only if *825
Caduff v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Co. 381 N.W.2d 9 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Caduff v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Co. 381 N.W.2d 9 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Cole v. Paulson 380 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Cole v. Paulson 380 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Otto v. Weber 379 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Otto v. Weber 379 N.W.2d 692 Minn. Ct. App. 1986