My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Correspondence
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
B
>
Baldur Park Road
>
1340 Baldur Park Road - 08-117-23-31-0015
>
Puzak-Wingerd 2011
>
Correspondence
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/22/2023 5:43:32 PM
Creation date
1/8/2021 8:13:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
x Address Old
House Number
1340
Street Name
Baldur Park
Street Type
Road
Address
1340 Baldur Park Rd
PIN
0811723310015
Supplemental fields
ProcessedPID
Updated
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Plaintiffs contend that even if the 1948 Deed created a valid appurtenant easement, more <br /> time is needed for discovery to investigate whether the easement was still valid at the time they <br /> took title. The Supreme Court held that "[i]t has long been recognized in Minnesota that a person <br /> who purchases land with knowledge or with actual, constructive, or implied notice that it is <br /> burdened with an easement in favor of other property ordinarily takes the estate subject to the <br /> easement." Werner, at 275; Levine, at 264; cited in Anderson, at *5. Such easements must be <br /> duly recorded in order to satisfy notice requirements for warranty property. Werner, at 275. <br /> As discussed above, the 1948 Deed was duly recorded. The property has not been <br /> subsequently reformed by any duly recorded contract. Plaintiffs had actual, constructive, or <br /> implied notice that Lot 20 was burdened with an easement when they purchased the land, <br /> through the duly recorded 1948 Deed. No issue of fact exists as to whether Plaintiffs had proper <br /> notice of the easement. Plaintiffs purchased the estate with proper notice of its burden, and took <br /> the estate subject to the easement. Further discovery will not change these facts. <br /> 2. Plaintiffs' search for judicial reformation. <br /> Plaintiffs contend that the easement created by the 1948 Deed was litigated and <br /> substantially reformed by Judicial Order, recorded as Document No. 258347, May 24, 1994, <br /> pursuant to Proceedings Subsequent. <br /> A court may reform an easement"upon any reasonable ground,"but only after giving <br /> notice to all interested parties, "as determined by the examiner of titles." Minn.Stat. § 508.71. <br /> The examiner of titles would have to have determined that predecessors in title to the Plaintiffs' <br /> land would be an interested party if their title was subjected to litigation and possible <br /> reformation. The title of record shows no failed or successful attempt to give such required <br /> notice. The courts will not order anything affecting title without first giving proper notice. Id. <br /> 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.