Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re Estate of Eriksen, 337 N.W.2d 671.

59 citing documents.

In re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2026
But the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that the jurisdictional bar imposed by sections 513.075 and 513.076 applies only when the “sole consideration for a contract between cohabiting parties is their contemplation of sexual relations out of wedlock.”
In re the Estate of Trisha J Ingersoll a/k/a Trisha Jolee Ingersoll, Trisha Ingersoll f/k/a Trisha Offerman, Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
David Carl Hepfl v. Jodine Patrice Meadowcroft 9 N.W.3d 567 Minn. 2024
David Carl Hepfl v. Jodine Patrice Meadowcroft 9 N.W.3d 567 Minn. 2024
In re the Estate of: Joseph Rocco Figliuzzi, Minn. 2022
In re the Marriage of: Kathleen Marie Tiedke, nka Kathleen Marie Freitag, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
James C. Holmes, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Estate of Clara Mae Murphy Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Estate of Clara Mae Murphy Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Jessica Jane Wittner v. Joshua Jonathan Phillips Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jessica Jane Wittner v. Joshua Jonathan Phillips Minn. Ct. App. 2016
( (emphasis in original)).
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
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 Minnesota Supreme Court has held, however, that the jurisdictional bar imposed by sections 513.075 and 513.076 applies only when the “sole consideration for a contract between cohabiting parties is their contemplation of sexual relations out of wedlock.”
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
In In re Estate of Eriksen, the supreme court concluded that the anti-palimony statutes do not prohibit claims between cohabitants when a “claimant does not seek to assert any rights in the property of a cohabitant but to preserve and protect [his or] her own property, which [was] acquired for cash consideration wholly independent of any service contract related to cohabitation.” -74 (Minn. 1983).
Mark W. Tibbals v. Kerry G. Tibbals Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Mark W. Tibbals v. Kerry G. Tibbals Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Constructive trusts may be imposed when the court is persuaded “by clear and convincing evidence that the imposition of a constructive trust is justified to prevent unjust enrichment.”
Arthur Allen Hogenson v. Michael W. Hogenson 852 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Arthur Allen Hogenson v. Michael W. Hogenson 852 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A party seeking to establish a constructive trust must show “by clear and convincing evidence that the imposition of a constructive trust is justified to prevent unjust enrichment.”
Peterson v. Holiday Recreational Industries, Inc. 726 N.W.2d 499 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Peterson v. Holiday Recreational Industries, Inc. 726 N.W.2d 499 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
The district court must be “persuaded by clear and convincing evidence that the imposition of a constructive trust is justified to prevent unjust enrichment.”
In Re the Estate of Savich 671 N.W.2d 746 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re the Estate of Savich 671 N.W.2d 746 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
The court must be “persuaded by clear and convincing evidence that the imposition of a constructive trust is justified to prevent unjust enrichment.”
In Re Estate of Palmen 588 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 1999
In Re Estate of Palmen 588 N.W.2d 493 Minn. 1999
Estate of Peterson 579 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Obert v. Dahl 574 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In Re Estate of Palmen 574 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In Re Estate of Palmen 574 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Obert v. Dahl 574 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In Re Estate of Vittorio 546 N.W.2d 751 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
In Re Estate of Vittorio 546 N.W.2d 751 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Roatch v. Puera 534 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Roatch v. Puera 534 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Sherek v. Independent School District No. 699 464 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Sherek v. Independent School District No. 699 464 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Head v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. 449 N.W.2d 449 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Estate of Spiess v. Schumm 448 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Estate of Spiess v. Schumm 448 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Mechura v. McQuillan 419 N.W.2d 855 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Mechura v. McQuillan 419 N.W.2d 855 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Appellant, relying on argues the cohabitation statutes do not apply to this case because she made contributions to the parties’ relationship.
Moore v. Sordahl 389 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Moore v. Sordahl 389 N.W.2d 748 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
§§ 513.075 and 513.-076 were therefore inapplicable to this case but relied on three post-1980 cohabitation decisions in dismissing appellant’s claim for equitable relief:
Fredin v. Farmers State Bank of Mountain Lake 384 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Fredin v. Farmers State Bank of Mountain Lake 384 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(citing Knox v. Knox, 222 Minn. 477, 481 , ).
Wilson v. Skogerboe 379 N.W.2d 696 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Wilson v. Skogerboe 379 N.W.2d 696 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Ferguson v. Shea 374 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 1985