Cited by

We review de novo the district court’s interpretation of remand instructions, see Thompson, d at 354, and its application of remand instructions

This court has recognized that, despite the obligation to file notice of a homestead claim within six months of vacating homestead property, “longstanding caselaw establishes that an owner is not required to file such notice if he is under a legal disability that precludes him from filing it.” (citing Millett v. Pearson, 173 N.W.

(applying de novo review to interpretation of caselaw).

Jude Med., Inc., n.1 (Minn. App. 2013)

of Wausau, they may be persuasive provided they are consistent with the supreme court’s rationale

Jude Med., Inc., n.1 (Minn. App. 2013)

See In re Estate of Eckley , (observing that findings of f act are necessary to an appellate court’s review).

in the absence of findings of fact about that evidence, we cannot be certain”); (“Because the district court failed to consider appellant’s arg uments and failed to make the findings needed to address these contentions, we remand.”).

235, 235 (Minn. 1917); see also In re Estate of Eckley , (“Property ceases to be the owner’s homestead when the owner abandons his home.”).

See In re Estate of Eckley , d 407, 415 (Minn. App. 2010) (“Because the di strict court failed to consider appellant’s arguments and failed to make the findings needed to address these contentions, we remand.”).

Jude Med., Inc., , 788 n.1 (Minn. App. 2013)

“[C]ourts read debtor-creditor statutes pertaining to homesteads to fill in the relevant gaps in the probate statutes.”

See, (“Because the district court failed to consider appellant's arguments and failed to make the findings needed to address these contentions, we remand.”); (remanding case to district court to decide factual question); see also Doe 175 ex re

-15 (Minn.App.2010) (remanding to allow district court to address arguments and make appropriate findings in the first instance).