Laserfiche WebLink
No right or interest in the City of Orono whatsoever is <br /> reflected on the Certificate of Title to the Letendre parcel. In <br /> fact, the Examiner does not even require that the City be noti- <br /> fied of the hearing on the petition. <br /> The basic facts of this case are not in dispute. It is not <br /> disputed for instance that the petitioners are the registered <br /> owners of the Letendre Parcel , and that their Certificate of <br /> Title contains on it a memorial of the agreement granting to the <br /> property an appurtenant easement for access to the shore of Lake <br /> Minnetonka over part of the Chapman parcel. It is also undis- <br /> puted that no reference whatsoever on any certificate of title to <br /> either Lot in Chapmans Addition has ever been filed or memorial- <br /> ized by the City of Orono relative to its alleged right to keep <br /> the Letendre parcel free of riparian rights. <br /> Clearly, the contension of the City of Orono that they <br /> have some right to keep the Petitioners from obtaining the order <br /> they seek depends upon their demonstration that the Petitioners <br /> were not "purchasers in good faith and for valuable considera- <br /> tion" . Admittedly, this is a fact question. However , both <br /> Petitioners as well as their realtor and the realtor representing <br /> the party who sold the Letendre parcel to them, have submitted <br /> affidavits which are on file with the Court in which they confirm <br /> that they had no knowledge whatsoever of the claim of the City of <br /> Orono, or anyone else for that matter, that the easement giving <br /> the Letendre parcel access to the lake was in any way invalid. <br /> Under Rule 56.05, when a party moving for summary judgment <br /> -6- <br />