Laserfiche WebLink
grantor. (Gill v. Russell, 23 Minn 362 , 1877 ) . <br /> Orono's position amounts to a claim that it is the benefi- <br /> ciary of an oral restictive covenant placed on the Letendre <br /> parcel by Chapman in exchange for platting approval from Orono. <br /> Orono made no effort to place any document empodying this Agree- <br /> ment in the public record. In fact, they never even bothered to <br /> prepare such a document or have Mr. Chapman sign it. They merely <br /> point to statements allegedly made by Mr. Chapman at City Council <br /> meetings. Such statements, even if found to be binding as <br /> between Mr. Chapman and the City of Orono, do not even begin to <br /> comply with the requirements of the recording act so as to be <br /> binding against an innocent third party. <br /> The policy favoring the public recording of interest in <br /> real estate so as to give rise to constructive notice to the <br /> public is embodied in the Torrens Act, Chapter 508 of Minnesota <br /> Statutes. MS §508.25, states, in pertinent part: <br /> Every person receiving a Certificate of Title pur- <br /> suant to a decree of registration and every subse- <br /> quent purchaser of registered land who receives a <br /> certificate of title in good faith and for a valu- <br /> able consideration shall hold it free from all <br /> encumbrances and adverse claims, excepting only the <br /> estates, mortgages, liens, charges and interest as <br /> may be noted in the last certificate of title in the <br /> Office of Registrar. . . " <br /> Chapter 508 goes on to state, in Section 508.48, that an <br /> instrument affecting title which is filed with the registrar and <br /> memorialized on the certificate has the same effect as it would <br /> if it had been recorded on unregistered property. Section 508.48 <br /> -4- <br />