See Minn. Stat. Ann. § 510.01 (West 2000). In Michels v. Kozitza, 610 N.W.2d 368, 372 (Minn.Ct.App. 2000), the court rejected a farmer's argument that the homestead exemption statute protected a twenty-acre piece of property that was noncontiguous with the parcel on which his home was located. The court underscored: "The exemption specifically states that the home is exempt `together with the land upon which it is situated.' Michels concedes that the 20 acres in dispute is noncontiguous with the land on which his home is situated.

The italicized language precludes the exemption of land that is not contiguous with the land on which the debtor's home is located, whether or not the debtor has an ownership interest in the non-contiguous parcel and occupies it for farming. See Michels v. Kozitza, 610 N.W.2d 368, 371 (Minn.App. 2000). As we read the numerous cases, Minnesota courts have been pragmatic in determining the extent to which contiguous farmland qualifies for the homestead exemption, seeking to decide each case in a manner consistent with the purposes underlying the exemption.

The homestead exemption can apply to more than one parcel of land, so long as the parcels are contiguous and the land is "occupied and cultivated as one piece or parcel of land, on some part of which is located the residence." Michels v. Kozitza, 610 N.W.2d 368, 371-72 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. Jul. 25, 2000).

But even in review of an injunction, issues of statutory construction will be analyzed on a de novo basis. Michels v. Kozitza, 610 N.W.2d 368, 371 (Minn.App. 2000), review denied (Minn. July 25, 2000). Further, summary judgment will be reviewed as a matter of law.

Collateral estoppel is available where: (1) the issues are identical to those in a prior adjudication; (2) there was a final judgment on the merits; (3) the estopped party was a party or in privity with a party in the previous action; and (4) the estopped party was given a full and fair opportunity to be heard on the adjudicated issues. Michels v. Kozitza, 610 N.W.2d 368, 373 (Minn.App. 2000), review denied (Minn. July 25, 2000). Appellant, in her memorandum to the California court, supported her motion to vacate the sister-state judgment under multiple theories including lack of personal service, lack of personal jurisdiction, collateral estoppel, equitable relief, and the existence of meritorious defenses to the Minnesota action.