Nelson v. Holland

11 Citing cases

  1. Volk v. Wigen

    Case No. 18-CV-3485 (PJS/DTS) (D. Minn. Jan. 19, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    transferor and third-party influencer had a confidential relationship; and whether there was an unreasonable or unusual disposition of property.Nelson v. Holland, 776 N.W.2d 446, 451-52 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009) (citation omitted). Whether conduct is the result of undue influence is usually a question of fact and the party asserting undue influence bears the burden of proof.

  2. In re Seward

    No. A23-0533 (Minn. Ct. App. Jun. 24, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    , rev. denied (Minn. Aug. 16, 1993). "Mental weakness alone is not sufficient to demonstrate that a contracting party is mentally incompetent if that party reasonably understands the nature and effect of entering into the contract." Nelson v. Holland, 776 N.W.2d 446, 451 (Minn.App. 2009). The party alleging incapacity to contract bears the burden of proof.

  3. In re Ursula E. Nelson Tr.

    No. A22-1781 (Minn. Ct. App. Jul. 10, 2023)

    The parties also agree that Minnesota caselaw permits invalidation of a contract where the evidence presented establishes that influence was exerted over another and "that the influence was so dominant and controlling of the influenced party's mind that, in making the contract, the influenced party ceased to act of his or her own free will, becoming a mere puppet of the wielder of that influence." Nelson v. Holland, 776 N.W.2d 446, 451 (Minn.App. 2009) (quoting In re Estate of Congdon, 309 N.W.2d 261, 268 (Minn. 1981) (defining undue influence in the context of whether a party unduly influenced the testator when the testator drafted her will)). In Nelson, this court enumerated the following factors to determine whether a decedent was unduly influenced to sell a parcel of real property: (1) the influencer's opportunity to exert influence over the decedent; (2) the degree to which the influencer actively participated in the preparation of the contract transferring the parcel of real property; (3) whether the decedent and the influencer had a confidential relationship; and (4) whether the contract terms are unreasonable or unusual. Id. (citing In re Estate of Opsahl, 448 N.W.2d 96, 100 (Minn.App. 1989) (listing undue influence factors in the context of a whether the proponents of a will unduly influenced a testator in the dr

  4. In re Estate of Horton

    No. A18-1477 (Minn. Ct. App. Jul. 1, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    "Mental weakness alone is not sufficient to demonstrate that a contracting party is mentally incompetent if that party reasonably understands the nature and effect of entering into the contract." Nelson v. Holland, 776 N.W.2d 446, 451 (Minn. App. 2009). Competence is measured at the time the agreement is signed.

  5. Butts v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Soc'y

    852 F. Supp. 2d 1139 (D.S.D. 2012)   Cited 4 times

    To determine whether a claim can survive a party's death, the Minnesota Supreme Court has said that the survivability test is in “the substance, not the form, of the cause of action.” Nelson v. Holland, 776 N.W.2d 446, 449 (Minn.Ct.App.2009) (citation omitted). The court examines whether a personal injury is the “primary and moving cause of the damages sought,” and “the nature of the damages sued for rather than the form of the remedy.”

  6. Jacobs v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Soc'y

    849 F. Supp. 2d 893 (D.S.D. 2012)   Cited 6 times

    To determine whether a claim can survive a party's death, the Minnesota Supreme Court has said that the survivability test is in “the substance, not the form, of the cause of action.” Nelson v. Holland, 776 N.W.2d 446, 449 (Minn.Ct.App.2009) (citation omitted). The court examines whether a personal injury is the “primary and moving cause of the damages sought,” and “the nature of the damages sued for rather than the form of the remedy.”

  7. Davis v. Ameriprise Fin.

    No. A22-0555 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2023)

    Capacity to contract presents a question of fact. Nelson v. Holland, 776 N.W.2d 446, 450 (Minn.App. 2009). A person is competent to enter a contract when, at the time of the contract's execution, the party was able to understand the "nature and effect" of what they were doing.

  8. Martin v. Martin

    No. A21-0612 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2022)

    Nevertheless, generally, competency to contract requires that a person "can understand the nature and effect of [their] actions when executing the contract." Nelson v. Holland, 776 N.W.2d 446, 450-51 (Minn.App. 2009); see Blattner, 411 N.W.2d at 26 (Minn.App. 1987) (identifying the standard for competency as "whether or not [a] person can fairly and reasonably understand the matter he is considering" in a dissolution-of-marriage case) (citing Krueger v. Zoch, 173 N.W.2d 18, 20 (Minn. 1969)). For purposes of this appeal, we assume, without deciding, that this is the level of competency required to enter into a stipulated OFP.

  9. Nelson v. State

    896 N.W.2d 879 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 4 times

    "Injuries that are personal to the decedent abate upon death, whereas injuries to the estate's property interests usually do not." Nelson v. Holland , 776 N.W.2d 446, 449 (Minn. App. 2009). "For example, claims for breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, unfair representation, and wrongful death survive a party's death; but claims for invasion of privacy, assault, pain, suffering, emotional distress, and violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act do not."

  10. Lauer v. Lauer

    A12-1216 (Minn. Ct. App. Jul. 29, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    See id. at 52. Whether a party is competent to execute a contract presents a question of fact. Nelson v. Holland, 776 N.W.2d 446, 450 (Minn. App. 2009). This court reviews for clear error the district court's findings as to a party's competency.