"The purpose of a lis pendens is to warn prospective purchasers that title to property is in litigation which impedes a property owner's right to free alienability of real estate." Nelson v. Nelson, 415 N.W.2d 694, 698 (Minn.Ct.App. 1987). Even if filing a notice of lis pendens could possibly create a lien on registered property, an issue we do not decide here, we do not believe the filing in this case created a lien against the Carlton Property.
Lumber of Waite Park, Inc., 663 N.W.2d 14, 20 (Minn.Ct.App.2003) (“The filing of a notice of lis pendens created a cloud upon the title to the property.”); Nelson v. Nelson, 415 N.W.2d 694, 698 (Minn.Ct.App.1987) (“The purpose of a lis pendens is to warn prospective purchasers that title to the property is in litigation which impedes a property owner's right to free alienability of real estate.”). As a result, § 853(g) authorizes the court to take appropriate action to remove the cloud imposed by the Notice. Moreover, it appears that Carlson lacked a sufficient interest in the LPOE Property when he filed the Notice.
However, Minn. Stat. § 514.01 "precludes the filing of a mechanics' lien by an owner upon his own property." Minn. Stat. § 514.01 (2022); Nelson v. Nelson, 415 N.W.2d 694, 697 (Minn.App. 1987).
"The purpose of a lis pendens is to warn prospective purchasers that title to property is in litigation which impedes a property owner's right to free alienability of real estate." Nelson v. Nelson, 415 N.W.2d 694, 698 (Minn. App. 1987). Roe then discovered that the Schmidts had filed the second notice of lis pendens, again interfering with her sale of the property.
Absent disputed facts, this court reviews the basis for discharging a notice of lis pendens de novo. Nelson v. Nelson, 415 N.W.2d 694, 697 (Minn. App. 1987). "[T]he sole function of [a] lis pendens is to give constructive notice to all the world of the pendency of [an] action, which is, alone, notice to all persons of the rights and equities of the party filing the lis pendens in the land therein described."
And because the partial-summary-judgment order provides the basis for the order to discharge the notices of lis pendens, we may review the partial-summary-judgment order under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.04. See Nelson v. Nelson, 415 N.W.2d 694, 696-97 (Minn. App. 1987) (permitting review of partial-summary-judgment order under Minn. R. Civ. P. 103.04 when meaningful review of order for discharge of notice of lis pendens could not be conducted without review of partial-summary-judgment order on which order for discharge was based). II.
Absent disputed facts, this court reviews for legal error the basis on which a notice of lis pendens was discharged. See, e.g., Grace Dev. Co. v. Houston, 306 Minn. 334, 336, 237 N.W.2d 73, 75 (1975) (reviewing vendor's lien on which notice of lis pendens was based); Nelson v. Nelson, 415 N.W.2d 694, 697-98 (Minn. App. 1987) (reviewing mechanic's lien on which notice of lis pendens was based). The district court discharged the notice of lis pendens after concluding that appellants failed to show the existence of genuine issues of material fact as to claims that respondent had committed fraud, lacked authority to foreclose the mortgage, and violated various consumer-protection and criminal statutes.
And it may be held only by the party who improved the real estate, not the owner of the real estate improved. See Minn. Stat. § 514.01 (2008) (providing that "[w]hoever . . . contributes to the improvement of real estate by performing labor, or furnishing skill, material or machinery . . . shall have a lien upon the improvement, and upon the land on which it is situated or to which it may be removed"); Nelson v. Nelson, 415 N.W.2d 694, 697 (Minn. App. 1987) (holding that "the only reasonable interpretation of section 514.01 is that it precludes the filing of a mechanics' lien by an owner upon his own property"). Here, J. B. was the lienholder; Primesite merely owned the real estate which J. B.'s mechanic's lien attached.
Morton Bldgs., Inc. v. Comm'r of Revenue, 488 N.W.2d 254, 257 (Minn.1992). Mensings rely primarily on Nelson v. Nelson, 415 N.W.2d 694 (Minn.App.1987) in support of their argument. In Nelson, appellant purchased ten lots from respondent under a contract for deed.
Community Hosp. Linen Svcs., Inc., v. Comm'r. Of Taxation, 309 Minn. 447, 456, 245 N.W.2d 190, 195 (Minn. 1976). An owner of real property may not enforce a mechanic's lien against property that it owns. Nelson v. Nelson, 415 N.W.2d 694, 692 (Minn.App. 1987). Here, the evidence supports the district court's denial of summary judgment on this issue.