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

Minn. Stat. § 513.04 (2026)

Conveyance Of Interest In Land Except Up To One-Year Lease

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

No estate or interest in lands, other than leases for a term not exceeding one year, nor any trust or power over or concerning lands, or in any manner relating thereto, shall hereafter be created, granted, assigned, surrendered, or declared, unless by act or operation of law, or by deed or conveyance in writing, subscribed by the parties creating, granting, assigning, surrendering, or declaring the same, or by their lawful agent thereunto authorized by writing. This section shall not affect in any manner the power of a testator in the disposition of real estate by will; nor prevent any trust from arising or being extinguished by implication or operation of law.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases, 1946–2016 · leading case: TNT Props., Ltd. v. Tri-Star Developers LLC, 677 N.W.2d 94 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
TNT Props., Ltd. v. Tri-Star Developers LLC, 677 N.W.2d 94 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 8× “Is the statute of frauds, Minn.Stat. § 513.04 (2002), satisfied when a settlement agreement involving the conveyance of real property is orally placed on the record in open court? 2.”
Berg v. Carlstrom, 347 N.W.2d 809 (Minn. 1984). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 513.04 (1982). The statute of frauds applies to grants of easements.”
David Co. v. Jim W. Miller Constr., Inc., 444 N.W.2d 836 (Minn. 1989). · cites it 2× “We next address appellant’s claim that the award violates Minn. Stat. § 513.04 (1988) (the Statute of Frauds).”
Shaughnessy v. Eidsmo, 23 N.W.2d 362 (Minn. 1946). · cites it 2× “1941, § 513.04 (Mason St. 1927, § 8459). 3 In the second place, an option agreement is a unilateral contract 4 and as such it is, however long the time for the exercise of the option may run, not within the statute of frauds.”
Peterson v. Holiday Recreational Indus., Inc., 726 N.W.2d 499 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. 513.04 (2004). Minn.Stat. § 513.”
Kramer v. Bruns, 396 N.W.2d 627 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “Part performance may take a case out of the statute of frauds only with regard to oral contracts for conveyance of real estate under section 513.04. See e.g., Nybladh v. Peoples State Bank of Warren, 247 Minn.”
Hunter v. Anchor Bank, N.A., 842 N.W.2d 10 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013). “, § 513.04. In her principal brief, Hunter challenged the entry of summary judgment on counts 1 through 4 only by attacking the district court’s first reason for granting the motions, that the claims are barred by the statute of limitations.”
Borchardt v. Kulick, 48 N.W.2d 318 (Minn. 1951). · cites it 5× “01 ] and § 8459 [now § 513.04]), and we said that damages for breach of the contract cannot be recovered by action in any court.”
Staples v. Miller, 319 N.W.2d 57 (Minn. 1982). · cites it 2× “Was the agreement between Robert and Howard Staples, dated December 16, 1958, a valid conveyance of real estate? Under Minnesota law, “[t]he word ‘conveyance’ * * * includes every instrument in writing whereby any interest in real estate is created, aliened, mortgaged, or…”
Brotzler v. Comm'r, 44 T.C.M. 1478 (Tax Ct. 1982). · cites it 3× “Under Minnesota law, the delivery of a deed is absolutely essential to the transfer of legal title to real property. Minn. Stat. Ann.”
State ex rel. Balfour v. Bergeron, 187 N.W.2d 680 (Minn. 1971). · cites it 2× “§ 513.04. We must consider, however, the policy of the statute of frauds and the act against discrimination as well as their technical application.”
Richard W. Anderson v. Prop. Developers, Inc., & Ferris E. Traylor, Richard W. Anderson v. Two Rivers, Inc., & Ferris E. Traylor, 555 F.2d 648 (8th Cir. 1977). “” After having considered this evidence and the record as a whole, we are convinced that the trial court’s findings pertaining to the terms of the Anderson Lakes joint venture agreement find substantial support in the record and certainly are not clearly erroneous. Defendants…”
Show all 29 citing cases →
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.