§ 513.01
Citing Cases (42)
Minnesota Supreme Court
Patrick M. Figgins v. Noah Wilcox · 2016 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
State v. Spence · 2009 2 citations
+ 2 more citations in this opinion.
Sigler v. First American National Bank of St. Cloud · 1982 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
Lunning v. Land O'Lakes · 1980 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
Minnesota Court of Appeals
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
Ronald D. Van Riper v. Bonnie L. Roy · 2016 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
JAB, Inc., d/b/a Future Concepts Studio & Spa v. Sara Naegle · 2015 4 citations
+ 4 more citations in this opinion.
Lorraine Rosenthal, Relator v. Cardinal of Minnesota, Ltd., Department of Employment & Economic Development · 2015 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
Glacial Plains Cooperative v. Lindgren · 2009 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
Riley Bros. Construction, Inc. v. Shuck · 2005 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
Bolander v. Bolander · 2005 2 citations
+ 2 more citations in this opinion.
Allison v. Best Recycling & Disposal, Inc. · 1997 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
Sutton v. Hansen · 1997 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
Association of Mill & Elevator Mutual Insurance Co. v. Barzen International, Inc. · 1996 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
Bartley v. BTL Enterprises, Inc. · 1992 2 citations
+ 2 more citations in this opinion.
Goodhue State Bank v. Luhman · 1992 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
American Druggists' Insurance Co. v. Shoppe · 1989 3 citations
+ 3 more citations in this opinion.
Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. · 1989 2 citations
+ 2 more citations in this opinion.
Olesen v. Manty · 1989 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
Peters v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co. · 1988 1 citation
Mutual Benefit argues that even if the agency contract had been modified as Peters alleges, that modification would be unenforceable under the statute of frauds, Minn. Stat. § 513.01(1) (1986). The essence of this argument is that because the GCV program provided for payments to be made over a period of at least ten years after retirement, the contract was not capable of performance within one year and a writing was therefore required.
Schaefer v. Bork · 1987 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
Mitchell Feed & Seed, Inc. v. Mitchell · 1987 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
O'Brien Entertainment Agency, Inc. v. Wolfgramm · 1987 2 citations
+ 2 more citations in this opinion.
Kramer v. Bruns · 1986 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
Esselman v. Production Credit Ass'n of St. Cloud · 1986 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
Eklund v. Vincent Brass and Aluminum Co. · 1984 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
U.S. District Court, D. Minnesota
Security Bank & Trust Company v. Cook Group, Inc. · 2024 2 citations
+ 2 more citations in this opinion.
Management Registry, Inc. v. A.W. Companies, Inc. · 2022 2 citations
+ 2 more citations in this opinion.
Steady State Imaging, LLC v. General Electric Company · 2019 2 citations
+ 2 more citations in this opinion.
Roulo v. Keystone Shipping Co. · 2018 2 citations
+ 2 more citations in this opinion.
Steady State Imaging, LLC v. General Electric Company · 2018 2 citations
+ 2 more citations in this opinion.
Pedersen v. AKONA, LLC · 2006 4 citations
The Minnesota Statute of Frauds delineates that a contract “that by its terms is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof’ is unenforceable unless “such agreement, or some note or memorandum thereof, expressing the consideration, is in writing, and subscribed by the party charged therewith.” Minn. Stat. § 513.01. The statute of frauds expresses the public policy of preventing enforcement of contracts by means of fraud and perjury that were never in fact made. Radke v. Brenon, 271 Minn. 35, 134 N.W.2d 887, 890 (1965). A memorandum is sufficient to comply with the statute of frauds when it sets forth all the essential terms of the agreement so that it may be proved on the basis of such memo *1139 randum without resort to parol evidence. In re Petroleum Carriers Co., 121 F.Supp. 520, 523 (D.Minn.1954). Several papers may constitute a sufficient memorandum to meet the requirements of the statute of frauds if, taken together and without the need of parol evidence to connect them, they make out a complete statement of the transaction. Id.
The Minnesota Statute of Frauds delineates that a contract “that by its terms is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof’ is unenforceable unless “such agreement, or some note or memorandum thereof, expressing the consideration, is in writing, and subscribed by the party charged therewith.” Minn. Stat. § 513.01. The statute of frauds expresses the public policy of preventing enforcement of contracts by means of fraud and perjury that were never in fact made. Radke v. Brenon, 271 Minn. 35, 134 N.W.2d 887, 890 (1965). A memorandum is sufficient to comply with the statute of frauds when it sets forth all the essential terms of the agreement so that it may be proved on the basis of such memo *1139 randum without resort to parol evidence. In re Petroleum Carriers Co., 121 F.Supp. 520, 523 (D.Minn.1954). Several papers may constitute a sufficient memorandum to meet the requirements of the statute of frauds if, taken together and without the need of parol evidence to connect them, they make out a complete statement of the transaction. Id.
The Minnesota Statute of Frauds delineates that a contract “that by its terms is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof’ is unenforceable unless “such agreement, or some note or memorandum thereof, expressing the consideration, is in writing, and subscribed by the party charged therewith.” Minn. Stat. § 513.01. The statute of frauds expresses the public policy of preventing enforcement of contracts by means of fraud and perjury that were never in fact made. Radke v. Brenon, 271 Minn. 35, 134 N.W.2d 887, 890 (1965). A memorandum is sufficient to comply with the statute of frauds when it sets forth all the essential terms of the agreement so that it may be proved on the basis of such memo *1139 randum without resort to parol evidence. In re Petroleum Carriers Co., 121 F.Supp. 520, 523 (D.Minn.1954). Several papers may constitute a sufficient memorandum to meet the requirements of the statute of frauds if, taken together and without the need of parol evidence to connect them, they make out a complete statement of the transaction. Id.
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
General Marketing Services, Inc. v. American Motorsports, Inc. · 2005 2 citations
+ 2 more citations in this opinion.
SL Montevideo Technology, Inc. v. Eaton Aerospace, LLC · 2003 2 citations
+ 2 more citations in this opinion.
Semanko v. Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance · 2000 2 citations
Finally, the alleged oral agreement between the parties is barred by the statute of frauds. Minnesota courts will not enforce an oral agreement that, by its terms, is not to be performed within one year from its making. See Minn. Stat. § 513.01(1); Worwa v. Solz Enterprises, Inc., 307 Minn. 490, 238 N.W.2d 628, 631 (1976) (holding that summary judgment appropriate where the oral agreement “plainly cannot be performed within 1 year”). In this case, Semanko alleges that he and James reached a special oral agreement concerning the multi-year funding of his policy. Because this agreement by its terms could not be performed within one year, and because it was not memorialized in any written form, it is unenforceable as a matter of law.
Finally, the alleged oral agreement between the parties is barred by the statute of frauds. Minnesota courts will not enforce an oral agreement that, by its terms, is not to be performed within one year from its making. See Minn. Stat. § 513.01(1); Worwa v. Solz Enterprises, Inc., 307 Minn. 490, 238 N.W.2d 628, 631 (1976) (holding that summary judgment appropriate where the oral agreement “plainly cannot be performed within 1 year”). In this case, Semanko alleges that he and James reached a special oral agreement concerning the multi-year funding of his policy. Because this agreement by its terms could not be performed within one year, and because it was not memorialized in any written form, it is unenforceable as a matter of law.
Parkhill v. Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance · 2000 2 citations
+ 2 more citations in this opinion.
Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co. v. Johnson · 1990 4 citations
+ 4 more citations in this opinion.
Rockney v. Pako Corp. · 1988 2 citations
+ 2 more citations in this opinion.
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Shinnick · 1986 2 citations
+ 2 more citations in this opinion.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Bankr. D. Minnesota
Community Finance Group, Inc. v. Fields (In Re Fields) · 2011 2 citations
+ 2 more citations in this opinion.
Saeger v. ITT Financial Services (In Re Saeger) · 1990 2 citations
+ 2 more citations in this opinion.
Aetna Business Credit, Inc. v. Hart Ski Mfg. Co. (In Re Hart Ski Mfg. Co.) · 1980 2 citations
+ 2 more citations in this opinion.