Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 513. AGREEMENTS RELATING TO PROPERTY
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 513.01 (2026)

No Action On Agreement

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

No action shall be maintained, in either of the following cases, upon any agreement, unless such agreement, or some note or memorandum thereof, expressing the consideration, is in writing, and subscribed by the party charged therewith:

(1) every agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof;

(2) every special promise to answer for the debt, default or doings of another;

(3) every agreement, promise, or undertaking made upon consideration of marriage, except mutual promises to marry;

(4) every agreement, promise or undertaking to pay a debt which has been discharged by bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 58 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1946–2024 · leading case: Bolander v. Bolander, 703 N.W.2d 529 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bolander v. Bolander, 703 N.W.2d 529 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “IV CB&S argues that the district court erred by not dismissing Bruce's claim that the parties agreed to extend his employment agreement by two years, alleging that Bruce's claim is barred by the statute of frauds. The statute of frauds states that no action shall be maintained…”
State v. Spence, 768 N.W.2d 104 (Minn. 2009). · cites it 4× “See Minn.Stat. § 513.01(1) (2008) (requiring that any agreements not performable in one year must be in writing in order for an action to lie).”
Oskey Gasoline & Oil Co., Inc., a Minnesota Corp. v. Cont'l Oil Co., a Delaware Corp., 534 F.2d 1281 (8th Cir. 1976). · cites it 4× “4 The appellant does not contend that the various memoranda surrounding the March 1969 oral agreement satisfies the stringent requirements of the one-year statute of frauds provision, Minn.Stat. § 513.01. Rather, Oskey relies upon the more liberal provisions of the Minnesota…”
Kramer v. Bruns, 396 N.W.2d 627 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 6× “statute of frauds, provides in part: No action shall be maintained, in either of the following cases, upon any agreement, unless such agreement, or some note or memorandum thereof, expressing the consideration, is in writing, and subscribed by the party charged therewith: (1)…”
Eklund v. Vincent Brass & Aluminum Co., 351 N.W.2d 371 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “(a) statute of frauds: Minn.Stat. § 513.01 (1983) states: No action shall be maintained, in either of the following cases, upon any agreement, unless such agreement, or some note or memorandum thereof, expressing the consideration, is in writing, and subscribed by the party…”
SL Montevideo Tech., Inc. v. Eaton Aerospace, LLC, 292 F. Supp. 2d 1173 (D. Minnesota 2003). · cites it 3× “Montevideo’s Amended Complaint indicates that the subject matter of the implied contract-maintaining the confidentiality and security of Montevideo’s trade secrets-was to be performed from 1994 until 2002.”
Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 445 N.W.2d 248 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “Finally, the newspapers argue that a promise of confidentiality is not enforceable because it is part of an "agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof.”
Parkhill v. Minnesota Mut. Life Ins., 174 F. Supp. 2d 951 (D. Minnesota 2000). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 513.01(1); FlaStat. § 725.01.”
Borchardt v. Kulick, 48 N.W.2d 318 (Minn. 1951). · cites it 14× “41, § 6, the language was changed so that it is identical with our present § 513.01, and it has remained so without change since that time, except that paragraph (4) was added by E.”
Orthomet, Inc., a Minnesota Corp. v. A.B. Med., Inc., a Florida Corp. Ray Aubrey, a Florida Citizen Creighton Beddow, 990 F.2d 387 (8th Cir. 1993). · cites it 3× “Hence, Orthomet contends the district court properly found that AB failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the statute of frauds had been satisfied. We agree. The statute of frauds requires that contracts that cannot be performed within one year be in…”
Loftness Specialized Farm Equip., Inc. v. Twiestmeyer, 742 F.3d 845 (8th Cir. 2014). “The Minnesota statute of frauds states, in relevant part, that an agreement “that by its terms is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof’ is unenforceable “unless such agreement, or some note or memorandum thereof, expressing the consideration, is in…”
Lunning v. Land O'Lakes, 303 N.W.2d 452 (Minn. 1980). · cites it 2× “Defendant’s answer asserted the statute of frauds, Minn.Stat. § 513.01(1), as a defense and defendant counterclaimed for plaintiff’s alleged breach of the written contract.”
Show all 58 citing cases →
— Minn. Stat. § 513.01(1) — 10 cases
State v. Spence, 768 N.W.2d 104 (Minn. 2009). “See Minn.Stat. § 513.01(1) (2008) (requiring that any agreements not performable in one year must be in writing in order for an action to lie).”
SL Montevideo Tech., Inc. v. Eaton Aerospace, LLC, 292 F. Supp. 2d 1173 (D. Minnesota 2003). “Montevideo’s Amended Complaint indicates that the subject matter of the implied contract-maintaining the confidentiality and security of Montevideo’s trade secrets-was to be performed from 1994 until 2002.”
Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 445 N.W.2d 248 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). “Finally, the newspapers argue that a promise of confidentiality is not enforceable because it is part of an "agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof.”
Parkhill v. Minnesota Mut. Life Ins., 174 F. Supp. 2d 951 (D. Minnesota 2000). “See Minn.Stat. § 513.01(1); FlaStat. § 725.01.”
Lunning v. Land O'Lakes, 303 N.W.2d 452 (Minn. 1980). “Defendant’s answer asserted the statute of frauds, Minn.Stat. § 513.01(1), as a defense and defendant counterclaimed for plaintiff’s alleged breach of the written contract.”
— Minn. Stat. § 513.01(2) — 8 cases
Ass'n of Mill & Elevator Mut. Ins. Co. v. Barzen Int'l, Inc., 553 N.W.2d 446 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996).
Esselman v. Prod. Credit Ass'n of St. Cloud, 380 N.W.2d 183 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).
Bartley v. BTL Enter., Inc., 490 N.W.2d 664 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992).
J. J. Brooksbank Co. v. Am. Motors Corp., 184 N.W.2d 796 (Minn. 1971).
Odens Fam. Props., LLC v. Twin Cities Stores, Inc., 393 F. Supp. 2d 824 (D. Minnesota 2005).
— Minn. Stat. § 513.01(3) — 1 case
Borchardt v. Kulick, 48 N.W.2d 318 (Minn. 1951). “41, § 6, the language was changed so that it is identical with our present § 513.01, and it has remained so without change since that time, except that paragraph (4) was added by E.”
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.