Brandon Knowles, Respondent,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A25-1646

Brandon Knowles,
Respondent,

vs.

Bradley Larry Knowles,
Appellant.

Filed May 11, 2026
Affirmed
Bond, Judge

Cass County District Court
File No. 11-CV-23-1487

Brandon E. Knowles, Monument, Colorado (self-represented respondent)

Thomas C. Pearson, Cody D. Schmidt, Gammello-Pearson, PLLC, Baxter, Minnesota (for
appellant)

Considered and decided by Harris, Presiding Judge; Reyes, Judge; and Bond, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
BOND, Judge
In this partition action, appellant challenges the district court’s order confirming the
referees’ partition report and granting summary judgment in favor of respondent. We
affirm.

2
FACTS
Appellant Bradley Larry Knowles and respondent Brandon Knowles are brothers
who own three parcels of land in Cass County as tenants in comment .1 The two northern
parcels are undeveloped land while the larger southern parcel has a cabin that is uninsurable
due to disrepair.
The brothers inherited the parcels from their father in 2015 and they cooperatively
paid for the maintenance and property expenses on the parcels until 2022, when their
relationship began to deteriorate. In July 2022, respondent sent appellant a new property-
management proposal. Appellant did not agree with the proposal. In June 2023,
respondent hired ProNorth Appraisal, LLC to appraise the three parcels (the ProNorth
Appraisal). The ProNorth Appraisal determined that the total fair- market value of the
parcels as of June 26, 2023 was $404,000. The two northern parcels were valued at $82,000
and $55,000, and the southern parcel with the cabin was valued at $267,000. Appellant
did not agree with the ProNorth Appraisal.
In October 2023, respondent brought a partition action to divide the parcels, alleging
that the parties’ relationship made co-ownership unworkable and requesting that the district
court use the fair-market value determined by the ProNorth A ppraisal and award
respondent the southern parcel and appellant the two northern parcels plus an equalizing
payment of $65,000. In appellant’s answer, appellant disputed respondent’s allegations

1 This recitation of facts derives from the referees’ report, the district court’s findings of
fact, conclusions of law, order for judgment, and order for partition, and other parts of the
record relevant to the issues raised on appeal.
3
against him but agreed to partition. In December, appellant obtained an appraisal from
Johanneck Appraisals, LLC (the Johanneck Appraisal). The Johanneck Appraisal
determined that the total fair-market value of the three parcels as of December 1, 2023, was
$385,000. The Johanneck Appraisal valued the two northern parcels at $85,000 and
$55,000 and southern parcel at $245,000. The parties agreed with the Johanneck Appraisal.
After negotiations proved unsuccessful, the parties requested that the district court
appoint referees. The district court did so, and directed the two appointed referees to
submit a report specifying: (1) “[t]he manner in which the parcels shall be partitioned,”
(2) “[t]he fair market value of each party’s partition,” and (3) “[i]f the partition does not
create awards of equal value, the value of any equalization payment due to the party
receiving the less valuable portion.”
In August 2024, after interviewing the parties, the referees filed their report. The
referees’ report included various factual findings and four recommendations as to the
manner in which the parcels should be partitioned: (1) partition the parcels in kind such
that the parties receive equal market value, (2) award respondent a portion of the southern
parcel including the cabin, (3) award appellant the two northern parcels, “plus however
much of the southern parcel . . . as necessary to equalize value,” or (4) in lieu of splitting
the southern parcel, order respondent to pay appellant an equalizing payment of $52,500.
2

2 The district court and the parties refer to this payment in various ways, including
equalizing payment, offsetting payment, and owelty. For consistency, this opinion uses
the term “equalizing payment.”
4
The referees noted that “it [was] presently unknown among the parties whether any attempt
to further subdivide the Subject Properties into more parcels would entail significant cost.”
After the parties conducted additional discovery, respondent moved the district
court to confirm the referees’ report and grant summary judgment in his favor.
Specifically, respondent asked the district court to order partition in kind with
compensation as reflected in the fourth recommendation from the referees’ report. With
his motion, respondent submitted evidence—including a map and photos of the property,
a table of expenses related to the property, a police report, and various repair and survey
estimates—to support his argument that it was undisputed that subdividing the southern
parcel would be prejudicial, impractical, and cost-prohibitive. Appellant did not file a
written opposition to the motion for summary judgment, move to set aside the referees’
report, or submit any evidence to the district court.
The district court held a summary-judgment hearing at which both parties appeared
with counsel. Appellant argued that the matter should proceed to trial on the equalizing-
payment portion of the case but did not submit evidence or request additional time to
complete discovery. After the hearing, the district court issued an order confirming the
referees’ report and granting summary judgment in favor of respondent. Based on the
referees’ finding that there was not “great prejudice” to the parties preventing partition in
kind, the district court ordered partition in kind with compensation . The district court
determined that splitting the southern parcel would be impractical and the southern parcel
was more valuable than the combined value of the two northern properties such that an
equalizing payment was appropriate. After determining that no genuine issues of material
5
fact remained for trial, the district court adopted the fourth recommendation of the referees’
report, awarded the southern parcel to respondent and the two northern parcels plus an
equalizing payment of $52,500 to appellant, and entered judgment in favor of respondent.
Appellant moved for a new trial pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 59, or in the alternative,
for amended findings pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.02. Appellant’s posttrial motions
asserted that the referees’ factual findings were “flawed” and that unresolved issues existed
about the proper amount of the equalizing payment. The district court denied appellant’s
motions. The district court reasoned that appellant never challenged the referees’ report,
did not file any documents in opposition to respondent’s summary-judgment motion or
submit evidence showing a genuine issue of material fact preventing summary judgment
in favor of respondent, and failed to satisfy the legal standard for a new trial or amended
findings.
This appeal follows.
DECISION
Appellant challenges the district court’s decision to confirm the referees’ report and
order partition in kind with compensation and to grant summary judgment in favor of
respondent. Because appellant’s arguments implicate different standards of review, we
consider them separately.3

3 Respondent argues that appellant failed to properly preserve his arguments for appellate
review because he did not file a written opposition to respondent’s summary-judgment
motion. But appellant appeared at the summary-judgment hearing and presented oral
arguments to the district court opposing respondent’s summary-judgment motion. We
therefore consider the merits of appellant’s arguments.
6
I. The district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering partition in kind with
compensation.

Partition actions of real property are governed by chapter 558 of the Minnesota
Statutes, which provide multiple ways in which a partition action may be resolved.
Neumann v. Anderson, 916 N.W.2d 41, 47 (Minn. App. 2018), rev. denied (Minn. July 17,
2018). One such way is for the district court to order a partition in kind. Minn. Stat.
§ 558.01 (2024).4 “A partition in kind is the physical division of property held in tenancy
in common.” Neumann, 916 N.W.2d at 47 (quotation omitted). The district court may
also order a partition in kind with compensation. Minn. Stat. § 558.11. Under this method,
“[w]hen it appears that partition cannot be made equal between the parties without
prejudice to the rights or interests of some, the court may adjudge compensation to be made
by one to another for equality of partition.” Id. This compensation, known as owelty, may
be ordered “when necessary to make an equitable and fair division.” Neumann, 916
N.W.2d at 47 (quotation omitted). In addition to the statutory remedies, a district court
“may exercise its general equitable powers and resort to the most advantageous plans which
the nature of the particular case admits in effecting, without great prejudice to any of the
owners.” Swogger v. Taylor, 68 N.W.2d 376, 383 (Minn. 1955). For these reasons, a
district court’s decisions regarding the division of property in a partition action will not be

4 This partition action was commenced before August 1, 2025, and is therefore governed
by Minnesota Statutes chapter 558. Minn. Stat. §§ 558.01-.32 (2024). The Minnesota
Partition Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 558A.01-.29 (Supp. 2025), governs partition actions
commenced on or after August 1, 2025.
7
reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Glenwood Inv. Props., L.L.C. v. Carroll A. Britton
Fam. Tr., 765 N.W.2d 112, 117 (Minn. App. 2009).
Once a district court determines that partition is necessary, the partition statute
requires that referees be appointed “to make partition and set off the shares of the several
persons interested as determined by the judgment.” Minn. Stat. § 558.04. The referees
must “make a report of their proceedings . . . describing the property and the share allotted
to each party, with a particular description thereof.” Minn. Stat. § 558.06. Upon receiving
a referees’ report, the district court “may confirm or set aside the report.” Minn. Stat.
§ 558.07.
A request to set aside a referees’ report is “usually considered as analogous to a
motion for a new trial, and the report as entitled to the same force and effect as the verdict
of a jury or a finding made by the court.” Neumann, 916 N.W.2d at 49 (quotation omitted).
Accordingly, a referees’ report in a partition action may only be set aside if “it is shown by
a very clear and decided preponderance of evidence that the [referees] have made a grossly
unequal allotment.” Id. at 50-51 (quotation omitted). Similarly, factual findings in a
referees’ report will not be set aside unless the challenging party can demonstrate that the
report’s findings are “ clearly and palpably against the evidence.” Id. at 53 (quotation
omitted) (discussing “the special deference to which the referees’ report is due”).
Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion when it confirmed the
referees’ report, contending that the referees exceeded their authority and made erroneous
factual findings that appellant did not have an opportunity to rebut. Specifically, appellant
challenges the referees’ findings that (1) the parties cooperatively paid for maintenance and
8
ongoing property expenses for the parcels from November 2015 through September 2022,
(2) appellant did not agree to the ProNorth Appraisal, (3) appellant prohibited respondent
from accessing the property on a certain date, and (4) the parties agreed to the Johanneck
Appraisal. Appellant maintains that these errors amount to irregularities in the proceedings
warranting a new trial, specifically on the issue of the amount of equalizing payment. We
disagree.
The referees’ report recommended partition in kind to allow each party to receive
equal fair-market value. To accomplish an equal division, the report recommended that
appellant receive the northern parcels, respondent receive the southern parcel, and that
higher-value southern parcel either be subdivided “as necessary to equalize value,” or “an
[equalizing] payment” be awarded from respondent to appellant in the amount of $52,500.
The district court’s order confirmed the referees’ report and ordered partition in kind with
compensation in the amount of $52,500.
At the time the district court was considering respondent’s motion for summary
judgment, appellant did not move to set aside the referees’ report. Appellant presented an
oral argument in opposition to respondent’s summary-judgment motion, but he did not
submit any evidence to the district court in support of his argument that the referees made
clearly erroneous factual findings. As we observed in Neumann, “[a] party seeking to set
aside a referees’ report may find it necessary to introduce evidence to contradict the
referees’ findings in order to demonstrate that the referees’ report is clearly and palpably
against the evidence.” Id. at 53 (quotation omitted). Contrary to appellant’s argument, the
record shows that appellant had an opportunity to rebut the referees’ findings and introduce
9
evidence to support his position that the referees made clearly erroneous factual findings
and the proposed equalizing payment was clearly erroneous, but he failed to do so.
Relatedly, appellant argues that the referees exceeded their authority by making
“one-sided” and clearly erroneous factual findings. But to succeed on this claim, appellant
must show that the report’s findings are “clearly and palpably against the evidence.” See
id. at 52-53 (quotation omitted). Again, appellant did not move to set aside the referees’
report or, in opposing summary judgment, present any evidence to contradict the referees’
findings. Based on our review of the record, we discern no basis on which to conclude that
the referees’ findings are “clearly and palpably against the evidence. ” See id. (quotation
omitted).
Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering
partition in kind with compensation in the amount of $52,500.
II. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of
respondent.

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, analyzing whether
there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied
the law. Riverview Muir Doran, LLC v. JADT Dev. Grp., LLC, 790 N.W.2d 167, 170
(Minn. 2010). “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom
summary judgment was granted.” STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., 644
N.W.2d 72, 76-77 (Minn. 2002).
Summary judgment shall be granted if the moving party shows that there is no
genuine issue of material fact and they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Minn.
10
R. Civ. P. 56.01. “A genuine issue of material fact exists when reasonable minds can draw
different conclusions from the evidence presented.” Rygwall, as Tr. for Rygwall v. ACR
Homes, Inc., 6 N.W.3d 416, 427 (Minn. 2024). The nonmoving party “cannot defeat a
summary judgment motion with unverified and conclusory allegations or by postulating
evidence that might be developed at trial.” Funchess v. Cecil Newman Corp., 632 N.W.2d
666, 672 (Minn. 2001); see also Wendell v. Comm’r of Revenue, 7 N.W.3d 405, 413 (Minn.
2024) (stating that to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, the
nonmoving party “must do more than rest on mere averments” (quotation omitted)).
Rather, the nonmoving party “must produce evidence that is sufficiently probative with
respect to an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case to permit reasonable persons
to draw different conclusions.” Metro. Transp. Network, Inc. v. Collaborative Student
Transp. of Minn., LLC , 6 N.W.3d 771, 778 (Minn. App. 2024) (quotation omitted), rev.
denied (Minn. July 23, 2024).
Appellant argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for
respondent because genuine issues of material fact exist relating to the amount of the
equalizing payment based on “costs expended by [a]ppellant over the course of ownership
of the parcels.” The referees’ report recommended an equalizing payment in the amount
of $52,500, and the district court confirmed the referees’ report and recommendation. As
we have explained, appellant did not object to the referees’ report or file a written
opposition to respondent’s motion for summary judgment. Even at the summary-judgment
hearing, appellant presented no evidence calling into question the amount of equalizing
payment.
11
Appellant points this court to his interrogatory responses which indicate that he paid
for certain property-related expenses like snow removal. But, viewed in the light most
favorable to appellant as the nonmoving party, these unsupported general assertions do not
create a genuine issue of material fact as to the appropriateness of either partition in kind
with compensation or the amount of the equalizing payment as found by the referees and
confirmed by the district court. See Wendell, 7 N.W.3d at 413 (s tating “mere averments”
by the nonmoving party are insufficient to show the existence of a genuine issue of material
fact (quotation omitted)); Nicollet Restoration, Inc. v. City of St. Paul, 533 N.W.2d 845,
848 (Minn. 1995) (stating “general assertions . . . are not sufficient to create a genuine issue
of material fact for trial”).
Appellant argues that additional supporting facts could be developed at trial. As the
nonmoving party, however, appellant “cannot defeat a summary judgment motion with
unverified and conclusory allegations or by postulating evidence that might be developed
at trial.” Funchess, 632 N.W.2d at 672. At the summary-judgment hearing, appellant did
not submit an affidavit pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.04 attesting to his inability to
“present facts essential to justify [his] opposition” to summary judgment or request
additional time for discovery.
12
We therefore conclude that the district court did not err by granting summary
judgment in favor of respondent and, based on its confirmation of the referees’ report,
ordering partition in kind with compensation to appellant in the amount of $52,500. 5
Affirmed.

5 Respondent argues that, as the prevailing party, he is entitled to costs and fees. This
argument is not appropriately made in a brief to this court, and we decline to consider it.
See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 139.01, 139.03, subd. 1.