Correspondence - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Lot 20 and that part of Lot 21 defined in the 1948 Deed also changed hands several times. In 2002, Plaintiff Ms. Wingerd purchased Lot 20 and that part of Lot 21. Plaintiffs reside on Lot 20. The certificate of title to Plaintiffs' property is in warranty, and shows no record of the description of the land being reformed or altered from its description in the 1948 Deed. Defendant 1350 Baldur LLC,through Mr. Puzak, recently purchased the remaining Lots on the peninsula: that portion of Lot 21 not owned by Plaintiffs, Lots 22-29, and Lots 31-33, and Mr. Puzak still personally owns Lot 30. Defendants' Lots are each torrens, registered property. c. Parties claims and Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs seek a Declaratory Judgment denying any servitude in the title of their property, Lot 20, and a portion of Lot 21, Block 1, Baldur Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Defendants own Lots 22-33, and that portion of Lot 21 which is not owned by Plaintiffs. Defendants' counterclaim seeks a Declaratory Judgment affirming an easement across Plaintiffs' property. Defendants brought a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the matter of existence, validity, nature, and dimensions of that easement. This Order resolves only the matter of Defendants' asserted easement on Plaintiffs' property. II. Summary Judgment Standard A grant of summary judgment is proper when: [T]he pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that either party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03. The Court must determine whether any genuine issues of material fact exist when the facts are viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. St. Louis Park Inv. Co. v. R.L. Johnson Inv. Co., 411 N.W.2d 288, 291 (Minn. App. 1987); Clark v. Peterson, 4