1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.W.2d
  4. 775 N.W.2d
  5. 775 N.W.2d 895 (2009)
 

IMPERIAL DEVELOPERS v. CALHOUN DEVELOPMENT

No. A08-1883.

775 N.W.2d 895 (2009)

IMPERIAL DEVELOPERS, INC., Plaintiff, v. CALHOUN DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Respondent, Regal Custom Homes, Inc., et al., Defendants, Lind Homes, Inc., Respondent, Thompson Plumbing Corp., Respondent, Great Northern I, Inc., Respondent, Southview Design & Construction, Inc., Appellant, BankFirst, Respondent, and The Woodshop of Avon, Inc., additional defendant, Respondent, and Scherer Bros. Lumber Co., intervening defendant and third party plaintiff, Appellant, v. Matthew Lind, et al., Third Party Defendants, and Simonson Lumber of Ham Lake, Inc., Third Party Plaintiff, v. Contractors Capital Corporation, et al., Third Party Defendants.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

December 8, 2009.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Loren E. Gross, Minneapolis, MN, for respondent Imperial Developers, Inc.

Richard A. Glassman, Glassman Law Firm, Minneapolis, MN, for respondent Calhoun Development, LLC.

James T. Hanvik, Bassford & Hanvik, P.A., St. Louis Park, MN, for respondent Thompson Plumbing Corp.

R. Glenn Nord, Lakeville, MN, for respondent Great Northern I, Inc.

Ann O'Reilly, David B. Gates, St. Paul, MN, for appellant Southview Design & Construction, Inc.

Brian M. Sund, Ryan R. Dreyer, Kathleen M. Ghreichi, Morrison Fenske & Sund, P.A., Minnetonka, MN, for respondent BankFirst.

Mark G. McKeon, Willenbring, Dahl, Wocken & Zimmermann, PLLC, Cold Spring, MN, for respondent Woodshop of Avon, Inc.

Thomas M. Zappia, Anne T. Behrendt, Hillwind Office Center, Fridley, MN, for appellant Scherer Bros. Lumber Co.

Considered and decided by SCHELLHAS, Presiding Judge; WORKE, Judge; and ROSS, Judge.

OPINION

WORKE, Judge.

Appellant-lienholders challenge the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent-mortgagees, arguing that (1) a mortgage must be both filed with the registrar and memorialized on the certificate of title for the interest to be "of record," and (2) the record does not support the court's determination that appellants had actual notice of respondents' mortgages. We reverse and remand.

FACTS

In December...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases