Foster v. Bergstrom

24 Citing cases

  1. Theusch v. Berg

    No. A07-848 (Minn. Ct. App. May. 6, 2008)   Cited 1 times

    Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc., 463 N.W.2d 722, 729 (Minn. 1990); Foster v. Bergstrom, 515 N.W.2d 581, 585 (Minn.App. 1994). This court will affirm the district court's findings if they are "reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole, or not manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence."

  2. Rixmann v. City of Prior Lake

    723 N.W.2d 493 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 5 times

    Although the statute does not use the term "maintenance," case law has consistently referred to the "kept in repair" language of the statute as "maintenance." See Foster v. Bergstrom, 515 N.W.2d 581, 585-6 (Minn.App. 1994) (citing Shinneman v. Arago Twp., 288 N.W.2d 239, 242 (Minn. 1980) for the proposition that "[designation as a public street requires (1) use by the public and (2) maintenance by an appropriate government agency (3) over a continuous period of at least six years.").

  3. TOWNSHIP v. MINNESOTA DEPT. OF NAT. RES

    No. C9-00-387 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2000)

    Schweich v. Ziegler, Inc., 463 N.W.2d 722, 729 (Minn. 1990); Foster v. Bergstrom, 515 N.W.2d 581, 585 (Minn.App. 1994). If the district court's findings are "reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole, or not manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence, the findings must be affirmed." Foster, 515 N.W.2d at 585.

  4. Welsh v. DeMars

    No. A06-2117 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 12, 2008)

    Appellants contend that the district court erred in its interpretation of Minn. Stat. ยง 541.023, often referred to as the Marketable Title Act (the act). They argue that the facts established at trial regarding the use of the easement by respondents' predecessors-in-interest do not meet the possession exception contained in the act. Generally, a party may invoke the Marketable Title Act as a defense when the party claims an interest in property and another party asserts a hostile claim to the same property. Foster v. Bergstrom, 515 N.W.2d 581, 586 (Minn.App. 1994). A prerequisite for a party's invocation of the act as a defense is that the party have a "claim of title [to the disputed property] based upon a source of title," that source of title "having been of record at least 40 years."

  5. Balbach v. Irving Twp. Bd.

    A13-1612 (Minn. Ct. App. Jun. 16, 2014)

    First, she must demonstrate that she has a "claim of title based upon a source of title, which source has then been of record at least 40 years." Minn. Stat. ยง 541.023, subd. 1 (2012); Foster v.Bergstrom, 515 N.W.2d 581, 587 (Minn. App. 1994). Source of title refers to "fee simple ownership."

  6. Foster v. Bergstrom

    No. A08-1922 (Minn. Ct. App. Jul. 21, 2009)

    The Fosters appealed the district court's decision. See Foster v. Bergstrom, 515 N.W.2d 581 (Minn.App. 1994). This court concluded that the district court did not err in awarding ownership of the road to the Bergstroms.

  7. Hallen v. Hometown America

    No. A06-1545 (Minn. Ct. App. Sep. 4, 2007)

    On appeal, this court's review is limited to deciding whether the district court's findings are clearly erroneous and whether the district court erred in its legal conclusions. Foster v. Bergstrom, 515 N.W.2d 581, 585 (Minn.App. 1994). While the district court did not expressly state that respondent had the burden of proving that the rent increase was "wholly unrelated to and unmotivated by" the judgment in Cimarron I, the court's findings support its legal conclusion that respondent met its burden of proving a nonretaliatory purpose for the rent increase.

  8. Town of Crooked Lake v. Pfaff

    No. A05-156 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2005)

    We will not reverse unless the findings are not "reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole" or are "manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence." Foster v. Bergstrom, 515 N.W.2d 581, 585 (Minn.App. 1994). In determining whether the district court has clearly erred, we must review the record in a light most favorable to the findings.

  9. Cnty. of Wash. v. Walker Props. of Woodbury II, LLC

    A14-2101 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2015)

    On appeal from a judgment, our review is limited to deciding whether the district court's findings are clearly erroneous and whether it erred in its legal conclusions. Foster v. Bergstrom, 515 N.W.2d 581, 585 (Minn. App. 1994). We review the denial of a motion for a new trial for an abuse of discretion. Moorhead Econ. Dev. Auth. v. Anda, 789 N.W.2d 860, 892 (Minn.

  10. Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Lakewood Park Third Addition v. Simes (In re Sampair)

    A14-0395 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2014)

    Minn. Stat. ยง 541.023, subd. 5. Under subdivision 5, any party who failed to record their property interest within 40 years is conclusively presumed to have abandoned such interest. Foster v. Bergstrom, 515 N.W.2d 581, 586-87 (Minn. App. 1994) ("A presumption of abandonment arises if the party against whom the Act is invoked has failed to record its interest in the property within 40 years from the date that interest is established."). As such, subdivision 5 stands for the opposite of what appellants argue.