Every county board shall procure at the expense of its county, and keep in the office of the county recorder suitable books or electronic media so as to allow information to be arranged or retrieved by the description of each section of land or sectional lot, and town or city lot and block arranged in numerical order, give appropriate initial or abbreviation for the type of instrument, and recite the book and page or the recorded document number by which every record affecting the title to the whole or any part thereof may be found. Such tract index shall be kept as one of the records in the office of the county recorder, and such recorder shall note therein the date, time, and minute of every instrument affecting the title to any land filed for record, to be made opposite to each parcel of land the title to which may be affected by such instrument. Instead of causing a tract index to be made, the board may purchase any existing tract index or abstracts; and thereafter the recorder shall make the appropriate entries therein. In either case, the recorder may make abstracts for persons demanding the same.
Notes of Decisions
MidCountry Bank v. Krueger, 782 N.W.2d 238 (Minn. 2010).
· cites it 6× “a tract index that includes the legal description of the affected land and the type, date, and time of every instrument affecting the title to any land filed for record, Minn.Stat. § 386.05. 10 Hinshaw and PHH argue that these statutes require the indexes to record the *247…”
Miller v. Hennen, 438 N.W.2d 366 (Minn. 1989).
· cites it 2× “1986); see also Minn.Stat. § 386.05 (1986). Implied notice has been found where one has “actual knowledge of facts which would put one on further inquiry.”
Ries v. Ibach (In Re Ibach), 399 B.R. 61 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2008).
· cites it 4× “”) with Minn.Stat. § 386.05 (2004) ("Eveiy county board may procure at the expense of its county, and keep in the office of the county recorder, suitable books, .”
MidCountry Bank v. Krueger, 762 N.W.2d 278 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “4, § 75, at 40 (emphasis added) (now codified at Minn.Stat. § 386.05 (2008)). The result is that Minnesota statutes, since 2005, require county recorders to maintain two recording indices, the historically primary grantor-grantee index and the newly required tract index.”
Howard, McRoberts & Murray v. Starry, 382 N.W.2d 293 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 386.05 (1984). In conclusion, we believe the trial court properly determined that HM & M had constructive notice of Myrtle Starry’s pending claim and took title to the property subject to the outcome of the Starry Construction litigation.”
N. v. SunTrust Bank, N.A. (In Re McCormick), 417 B.R. 362 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. 2009).
“In Krueger , the court held that a purchaser was charged with constructive notice of a prior mortgage that was recorded in the grantor/grantee index even though the mortgage had not been recorded in the tract index because Minn. Stat. § 386.05 requires the newer tract index to…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.