Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 781 N.W.2d 36.

46 citing documents.

MOAC Mall Holdings, LLC v. The Walking Company, WalkingCo, LLC f/k/a Walking Company Acquisition LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc., Shetka v. Kueppers, Kueppers, Von Feldt & Salmen, (holding that the district court has considerable discretion in ruling on discovery requests, and therefore, appellate courts will not reverse its ruling absent a clear abuse of that discretion).
Sustainable 9, LLC d/b/a Sustainable 9 Design + Build v. Jacqueline Coleman, Riverland Bank, John Doe, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“In general, recoupment is a common-law doctrine that allows a party defending a [mechanic’s lien] claim to assert another claim for damages ‘growing out of the same transaction’ so that ‘one claim should compensate the other, and that the balance only should be recovered.’” Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc., (quoting Townshend v. Minneapolis Cold-Storage & Freezer Co., 48 N.W.
Hugh McTavish v. Life Time Fitness, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc.
In the Matter of the Petition of: Herman M. Bacchus and Chandra D. Bacchus for an Easement by … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
delay in seeking an easement.5 5 Rule 56.04 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure—which was rule 56.06 until a 2018 reorganization of the rule—allows a party who opposes a motion for summary judgment to request that the district court deny or continue the motion “on the ground that the non- moving party should be permitted to conduct additional discovery.” Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc., (“An affidavit filed pursuant to rule 56.06 must be specific about the evidence expected, the source of disc
Landmark Community Bank, N.A., now doing business as Flagship Bank Minnesota v. James L. Lang Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc.
Minnesota Bank & Trust v. 11 Water LLC, et al., David Jon Monson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc.
Allstate Indemnity Company v. Constantin Starchook, M.D., et al., Patrick Bartner, Angel Soto Minn. Ct. App. 2021
1, 2020), where, as here, a party challenges the decision based on its assertion that the district court prematurely dismissed the complaint without allowing sufficient discovery, we review for an abuse of discretion, Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc.
Paul Nelsen, Peter Nelsen, et al., individually and as interested persons for the benefit of the Estate of … Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc. , d 36, 44 (Minn. App. 2010) (“An attorney-in-fact is an agent, one who stands in the shoes of a principal .” (quotation omitted) ).
Midland Funding LLC, et al v. Joy Ford Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc., d 36, 45 (Minn. App. 2010).
Joel S. Rabbe, et al v. Farmers State Bank of Trimont, et al., Allen Kahler, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc.
In re the Estate of: Alex Batinich, Deceased Minn. Ct. App. 2019
And there is a genuine issue of material fact “if a rational trier of fact, considering the record as a whole, could find for the party against whom summary judgment was granted.” Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc.
Sela Invs. Ltd. LLP v. H.E. 909 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Sela Invs. Ltd. LLP v. H.E. 909 N.W.2d 344 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc. , , 40-43 (Minn. App. 2010) (noting that change in statutory phrasing brought about by recodification did not indicate a change in meaning); see also United States v. Rodgers , 461 U.S. 677 , 708, 103 S.Ct.
Sela Investments Ltd., LLP v. H.E. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc., -43 (Minn. 2010) (noting that change in statutory phrasing brought about by reco dification did not indicate a change in meaning); see also United States v. Rodgers , 461 U.S. 677, 708, 103 S. Ct. 2132, 2150 (1983) (noting that when a statute’s language is changed “without comment or explanation,” the change is
Steven Uhr v. University of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
An assertion that the district court awarded summary judgment prematurely because the nonmoving party should have been permitted to conduct additional discovery is reviewed by “apply[ing] an abuse -of-discretion standard to th[e] issue.” Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc.
FR Holding, LLC v. BA Halper, LLC, et al. and third party plaintiffs, vs. FactRight, LLC, et al., … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
P. 56.06; Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc.
Derby Construction v. Jade Lutzi Painting, LLC, Expert Insulation, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
But “a party opposing a summary judgment motion may request that the district 7 court deny or continue the motion on the ground that the non -moving party should be permitted to conduct additional discovery.” Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc.
City Center Commons, LLC v. DeSoto Associates, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc.
Accounts Receivable Services, LLC, as Successor in Interest to Allina Health System, Allina Health System, Nonparty Respondent v. … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“An affidavit filed pursuant to rule 56.06 must be specific about the evidence expected, the source of discovery necessary to obtain the evidence, and the reasons for the failure to complete discovery to date.” Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Bethany Good v. John Doe, Paul Christy Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc.
U. S. Bank National Association, as trustee, successor-in-interest to Bank of America, N.A., as trustee, successor to Wells … 888 N.W.2d 699 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
U. S. Bank National Association, as trustee, successor-in-interest to Bank of America, N.A., as trustee, successor to Wells … 888 N.W.2d 699 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc., -43 & nn.1-2 (Minn. App. 2010) (describing history of 1905 revision with respect to chapter 580).
U. S. Bank National Association, as trustee, successor-in-interest to Bank of America, N.A., as trustee, successor to Wells … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
U. S. Bank National Association, as trustee, successor-in-interest to Bank of America, N.A., as trustee, successor to Wells … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc., -43 & nn.1-2 (Minn. App. 2010) (describing history of 1905 revision with respect to chapter 580).
Robert P. Lindstrom v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Robert P. Lindstrom v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A nonmoving party’s failure to file a rule 56.06 affidavit, “by itself, justifies the district court’s decision to rule on the [summary-judgment] motion without granting relief under rule 56.06.” Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc.
Excel Manufacturing, Inc. v. Todd Wondrow, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Excel Manufacturing, Inc. v. Todd Wondrow, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“An affidavit filed pursuant to rule 56.06 must be specific about the evidence expected, the source of discovery necessary to obtain the evidence, and the reasons for the failure to complete discovery to date.” Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Erik Finstad, et al v. Ride Auto, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Erik Finstad, et al v. Ride Auto, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
An affidavit requesting time to conduct additional discovery “must be specific about the evidence expected, the source of discovery necessary to obtain the evidence, and the reasons for the failure to complete discovery to date.” Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc., (quotations omitted).
Arieh Cohen v. Blake Bjorlin, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Arieh Cohen v. Blake Bjorlin, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[A] failure to submit such an affidavit, by itself, justifies the district court’s decision to rule on the motion without granting relief under rule 56.06.” Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc.
Antler Ridge, LLC, et al v. Citizens State Bank-Midwest, Perry Hillman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Antler Ridge, LLC, et al v. Citizens State Bank-Midwest, Perry Hillman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc.
Hunter v. Anchor Bank, N.A. 842 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Hunter v. Anchor Bank, N.A. 842 N.W.2d 10 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
See Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc.
Embree v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n 828 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Embree v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n 828 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
See Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc., (holding that an attorney-in-fact acting under a limited power of attorney recorded prior to the mortgage it sought to foreclose did not violate Minn.Stat.
City of Maple Grove v. Marketline Construction Capital, LLC 802 N.W.2d 809 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
City of Maple Grove v. Marketline Construction Capital, LLC 802 N.W.2d 809 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Molde v. Citi-Mortgage, Inc.
State v. Brown 801 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Brown 801 N.W.2d 186 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Molde v. Citi-Mortgage, Inc.
Beecroft v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. 798 N.W.2d 78 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Beecroft v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. 798 N.W.2d 78 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc., -40 (Minn.App.2010).
Midland Credit Management v. Chatman 796 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Midland Credit Management v. Chatman 796 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc.