Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re Estate of Palmen, 588 N.W.2d 493.

24 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The supreme court also clarified that “the statutory bar does not apply where one party is merely seeking to preserve and protect [his or] her own property and is not seek[ing ] to assert any rights in the property of a cohabitant.” In re Est. of Palmen , (quotation omitted).
Rebecca L Bersch, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
The district court determined that the anti -palimony statutes bar Bersch’s claims with respect to all property other than the parties’ shared home or HELOC because 3 The anti-palimony statutes “prevent an unmarried couple living together in contemplation of sexual relations from receiving the legal rights conferred upon married couples.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Kathleen Marie Tiedke, nka Kathleen Marie Freitag, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In essence, sections 513.075 and 513.076 prevent a person who liv ed with another person outside of marriage “from receiving the legal rights conferred upon married couples.” In re Estate of Palmen
James C. Holmes, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
ings or property of another individual if the claim is based on the fact that the individuals lived together in contemplation of sexual relations.” The Minnesota Supreme Court explained t hat the anti -palimony statutes “prevent an unmarried couple living together in ‘contemplation of sexual relations’ from receiving the legal rights conferred upon married couples.” (citation omitted).
Jessica Jane Wittner v. Joshua Jonathan Phillips Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jessica Jane Wittner v. Joshua Jonathan Phillips Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Todd Emil Nelson v. Leslie Ann Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re the Marriage of: Todd Emil Nelson v. Leslie Ann Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The supreme court also clarified that “the statutory bar does not apply where one party is merely seeking to preserve and protect [his or] her own property and is not seek[ing] to assert any rights in the property of a cohabitant.” (quotations omitted).
Taras Lendzyk v. Laura Lee Wrazidlo, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Taras Lendzyk v. Laura Lee Wrazidlo, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 748 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 2008
Marriage of Goldman v. Greenwood 748 N.W.2d 279 Minn. 2008
Determination of the applicable statutory standard, and the interpretation of statutes, are questions of law that we review de novo.
Rutz v. Rutz 644 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Rutz v. Rutz 644 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
DeSalle v. Gibraltar Title Agency L.L.C. 621 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 2000
DeSalle v. Gibraltar Title Agency L.L.C. 621 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 2000
In Re Estate of Janecek 610 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2000
In Re Estate of Janecek 610 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 2000
Opus Northwest, L.L.C. v. Minneapolis Community Development Agency 599 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Opus Northwest, L.L.C. v. Minneapolis Community Development Agency 599 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Scott v. Forest Lake Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge 598 N.W.2d 713 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Scott v. Forest Lake Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge 598 N.W.2d 713 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Patterson v. Wu Family Corp. 594 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Patterson v. Wu Family Corp. 594 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1999