Any person having any right, title, or interest in or lien upon the land upon whom the summons has not been actually served, and who had no notice or knowledge of the filing of the application or of the pendency of such proceeding prior to the entry of the decree therein, may at any time within 60 days after the entry of such decree, and not afterwards, file a duly verified petition setting forth such facts and praying for leave to file an answer therein. If the court is satisfied of the truth of the matter set forth in such verified petition, it shall make an order permitting such petitioner to answer the application. Upon the filing of such answer, and upon not less than ten days' notice to the applicant, and to such other persons or parties as the court may order, and in such manner as it may direct, the court shall proceed to review the case, and, if satisfied that its decision or decree ought to be opened, it shall so order. Thereupon the court shall proceed to hear and try the case de novo and to make such further order, decision, or decree therein as shall be according to equity.
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Ryan, 124 F. Supp. 1 (D. Minnesota 1954).
· cites it 2× “§§ 508.26 and 508.28. It is clearly evident that, when a certificate of title has been issued by the registrar of titles pursuant to a decree of the District Court the decree is binding upon the entire world, subject only to the right of appeal allowed for a period of six months…”
McDaniel v. Fingerhut, 100 N.W.2d 497 (Minn. 1959).
· cites it 3× “01 can have no application here; and that §§ 508.26 3 and *86 508.28, 4 relating to registration proceedings, being inconsistent with Rule 24.”
Nw. Holding Co. v. Evanson, 122 N.W.2d 596 (Minn. 1963).
“The decree shall forever determine, bind, and conclude all the right, title, interest, estate, or lien in the land described therein of the husband or wife of any defendant acquired or growing out of th'e marriage relation in like manner as if such husband or wife had been…”
In Re Application of McDaniel to Register Title, 257 Minn. 78 (Minn. 1959).
· cites it 3× “01 can have no application here; and that §§ 508.26 [3] and *86 508.28, [4] relating to registration proceedings, being inconsistent with Rule 24.”
Application of Morlock, 431 N.W.2d 148 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “Appellant relies on Minn.Stat. § 508.26 (1986) in arguing he was entitled to notice of the proceeding.”
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.