§ 580.04
Citing Cases (6)
Minnesota Court of Appeals
Leeco, Inc. v. Cornerstone Bank · 2017 3 citations
+ 3 more citations in this opinion.
Minneapolis Grand, LLC v. Galt Funding LLC · 2010 2 citations
+ 2 more citations in this opinion.
U.S. District Court, D. Minnesota
Vagle v. Flagstar Bank N.A. · 2025 4 citations
+ 4 more citations in this opinion.
Welk v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC · 2012 2 citations
+ 2 more citations in this opinion.
Kebasso v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP · 2011 2 citations
+ 2 more citations in this opinion.
John W. Swenson & Sons, Inc. v. Aetna Life Insurance · 1983 8 citations
Swenson filed this suit on April 6, 1983, nine months after the foreclosure sale. Pri- or to that time, neither Swenson nor its attorney had challenged or otherwise objected to the manner in which the foreclosure sale was conducted. Swenson alleges in its three-count complaint that the sale was invalid and must be set aside because the tracts offered for sale did not match the tracts described in the notice of sale, allegedly in violation of Minn. Stat. § 580.04, and because the property was sold in gross rather than in separate tracts, allegedly in violation of Minn. Stat. § 580.08. Swenson alleges it will be irreparably harmed if the sale is not set aside and a new sale by separate tracts ordered because it will be deprived of its right to selectively redeem individual tracts.
Swenson filed this suit on April 6, 1983, nine months after the foreclosure sale. Pri- or to that time, neither Swenson nor its attorney had challenged or otherwise objected to the manner in which the foreclosure sale was conducted. Swenson alleges in its three-count complaint that the sale was invalid and must be set aside because the tracts offered for sale did not match the tracts described in the notice of sale, allegedly in violation of Minn. Stat. § 580.04, and because the property was sold in gross rather than in separate tracts, allegedly in violation of Minn. Stat. § 580.08. Swenson alleges it will be irreparably harmed if the sale is not set aside and a new sale by separate tracts ordered because it will be deprived of its right to selectively redeem individual tracts.
Swenson filed this suit on April 6, 1983, nine months after the foreclosure sale. Pri- or to that time, neither Swenson nor its attorney had challenged or otherwise objected to the manner in which the foreclosure sale was conducted. Swenson alleges in its three-count complaint that the sale was invalid and must be set aside because the tracts offered for sale did not match the tracts described in the notice of sale, allegedly in violation of Minn. Stat. § 580.04, and because the property was sold in gross rather than in separate tracts, allegedly in violation of Minn. Stat. § 580.08. Swenson alleges it will be irreparably harmed if the sale is not set aside and a new sale by separate tracts ordered because it will be deprived of its right to selectively redeem individual tracts.
+ 5 more citations in this opinion.