Laserfiche WebLink
property. Minnesota case law clearly states that even if a <br /> purchaser, paying valuable consideration, did not have actual <br /> it <br /> notice of a prior unrecorded interest , he would not be a bona fide <br /> purchaser if he had knowledge of fact that ought to have put him on <br /> an inquiry that would have led to a knowledge of a conflicting <br /> interest . Anderson v . Graham Inv . Co . , 263 N.W. 2d 382 (Minn. <br /> 1978) . Given the fact that the Agreement gave the owners of the <br /> interior lot an easement to have access to the lake and to maintain <br /> a dock, and that the Petitioners admit that they had been informed <br /> that the validity of the docking right may be in violation of the <br /> City ordinances , the Petitioners had knowledge of facts that should <br /> have led to proper inquiry of the City. Such inquiry would have <br /> resolved the issues at hand, and provided the Petitioners with <br /> actual knowledge that the Agreement creating the easement was <br /> invalid . <br /> Finally, the fact that the Petitioners purchased the interior <br /> lot for $130 , 000 . 00 in 1986 -- $54 , 900 . 00 less than the lot sold <br /> for in 1983 -- demonstrates that the Petitioners knew that the <br /> interior lot did not have the riparian rights asserted at this <br /> time . Furthermore, neighboring pieces of lakeshore property which <br /> are limited in size, but which include the right to maintain a dock <br /> have sold recently in the range of $16 , 000 to $17, 000 . See Exhibit <br /> J and K. It is doubtful that the right to use a dock as is at <br /> issue here, is of equal value to the right to own property and to <br /> own a dock on the property. Therefore, the $54 , 900 . 00 (30% of the <br /> previous selling price) drop in price cannot be solely attributable <br /> to the questionable right to maintain a dock on lakeshore property <br /> 1 '. <br /> -6- I <br />