Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Bruggeman v. Jerry's Enterprises, Inc., 591 N.W.2d 705.

22 citing documents.

Timothy Michaels, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A collateral contract is “one requiring the performance of a collateral act having no necessary relation to the main subject of the agreement.” Bruggeman v. Jerry’s Enters., Inc., (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 294 (6th ed. 1994)), aff’d
Adam Dowd, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In real estate transactions, “[t]he merger doctrine generally precludes parties from asserting their rights under a purchase agreement after the deed has been executed and delivered.” Bruggeman v. Jerry’s Enterprises, Inc.
TC Investment Group, LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Generally, when a deed is executed and accepted “in performance of executory contracts to convey,” the contract for deed merges with the deed itself , and in the future “th e rights of the parties are to be determined by the deeds, and not by the contracts.” Bruggeman v. Jerry’s Enterprises, Inc., (quotation omitted).
Robbie Nelson, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Bruggeman v. Jerry’s Enters., Inc., (“Over a century ago, we announced our endorsement of the merger doctrine.” (citing Whitney v. Smith, 22 N.W.
CSM Equities, LLC v. Woodland Village Investments Limited Partnership Minn. Ct. App. 2016
CSM Equities, LLC v. Woodland Village Investments Limited Partnership Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The merger doctrine generally precludes parties from asserting their rights under a 23 purchase agreement after the deed has been executed and delivered.” Bruggeman v. Jerry’s Enters., Inc.
Second Chance Investments, LLC v. Sabri Properties, LLC, Puentes Exteriors, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Second Chance Investments, LLC v. Sabri Properties, LLC, Puentes Exteriors, LLC Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The merger doctrine generally precludes parties from asserting their rights under a purchase agreement after the deed has been executed and delivered.” Bruggeman v. Jerry’s Enters., Inc.
Amos Graves v. Michael Wayman, First Minnesota Bank 859 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 2015
Amos Graves v. Michael Wayman, First Minnesota Bank 859 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 2015
The Recording Act “serves to protect bona fide purchasers who purchase a property in good faith and lack notice of others’ outstanding rights to the property.” Bruggeman v. Jerry’s Enters., Inc., -11 (Minn.1999).
Marian v. Swanson v. Terrence K. Swanson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Marian v. Swanson v. Terrence K. Swanson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Bruggeman v. Jerry’s Enters., Inc.
Mosloski v. Spencer 825 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Mosloski v. Spencer 825 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
See, (referring to document creating trust as “agreement”); Bruggeman v. Jerry’s Enterprises, Inc., -09 (Minn.1999) (explaining that “deed” is final expression of parties’ “agreements”).
JEM ACRES, LLC v. Bruno 764 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
JEM ACRES, LLC v. Bruno 764 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“The merger doctrine generally precludes parties from asserting their rights under a purchase agreement after the deed has been executed and delivered.” Bruggeman v. Jerry’s Enters., Inc.
Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 711 N.W.2d 811 Minn. 2006
Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 711 N.W.2d 811 Minn. 2006
Bruggeman v. Jerry’s Enters., Inc., 710 (Minn.1999).
Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 691 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. v. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 691 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
[T]he rights of the parties are to be determined by the deeds, and not by the contracts, the presumption being that the deeds give expression to the final purposes of the parties....” Bruggeman v. Jerry's Enters., Inc., (quotations omitted).
Blanche v. 1995 Pontiac Grand Prix (VIN: 162WJ12M95F268403) 599 N.W.2d 161 Minn. 1999
Blanche v. 1995 Pontiac Grand Prix (VIN: 162WJ12M95F268403) 599 N.W.2d 161 Minn. 1999
See Bruggeman v. Jerry’s Enterprises, Inc.