Cited by

App. P. 110.01 (stating that the record for an appeal is limited to the documents and exhibits that were before the district court and any transcript of proceedings) ; 204 (Minn. 1993) (ruling the court of appeals should not have considered a letter sent to district court after the ruling at issue on appeal), and (2) it was filed in April 2026, nearly a year after the May 2025 order, so it is not relevant to this appeal.

App. P. 110.01 (defining the record on appeal); 204 (Minn. 1993) (ruling we should not have considered a letter sent to district court after that court made the ruling at issue on appeal).

App. P. 110.01; 204 (Minn. 1993) (holding that appellate court should not have considered letter sent to district court after that court made determination at issue on appeal).

App. P. 110.01; 204 (Minn. 1993) (stating that court of appeals should not have considered a letter submitted to the district court after the court had issued its decision on the matter being appealed).

(e) material evidence, newly discovered, which with reasonable diligence could not have been found and produced at the trial; (f) errors of law occurring at the trial and objected to at the time, or if no objection need have been made, then plainly assigned in the motion; P. 110.01; 204 (Minn. 1993) (ruling we should not have considered a letter sent to district court after that court made the ruling at issue on appeal).

App. P. 110.01; (ruling we should not have considered a letter sent to district court after that court made the ruling at issue on appeal).

App. P. 110.01; 204 (Minn. 1993) (ruling this court should not have considered a letter sent to district court after it made the ruling at issue on appeal).

(concluding this court erred in considering a letter part of the record on review because the letter was filed with the district court one month after the case was decided).

204 (Minn. 1993) (concluding that this court erred in considering a letter sent to district court one month after the case was decided).

.” (first alteration in original) (quotation omitted).

“[T]he right of redemption is a strict legal right, to be exercised, if at all, in accordance with the terms of [the] statute by which the right is conferred.” (quotation omitted).

E.g., Jorgensen, d at 897-900 (applying section 645.15 to a statute requiring 30 days notice before cancelling an insurance policy for nonpayment); (applying section 645.15 to a statute requiring a mortgagee in default to make a redemption payment within one year); Kokesh , 307 Minn, at 162, d at 885 (applying section 645.15 to a statute requiring published notice of a project three weeks before solicitation of construction bids); State

(applying section 645.15 to property redemption statute); State v. Fischer, 305 Minn. 538, 539 , (applying section 645.15 to a statute governing requisite notice for filing a criminal appeal); Township Bd.

Equitable estoppel is “the effect of the voluntary conduct of a party whereby he is absolutely precluded, both at law and in equity, from asserting rights which might perhaps have otherwise existed, * * * as against another person, who has in good faith relied upon such conduct, and has been led thereby to change his position for the worse.” (quoting In re Beier’s Estate, 205 Minn. 43, 53 , 284 N.W.

-83 (Minn.1988) (our review limited to district court record); (letter sent to district court after judgment was not part of record on review).