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

Minn. Stat. § 513.05 (2026)

Leases; Contracts For Sale Of Lands

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

Every contract for the leasing for a longer period than one year or for the sale of any lands, or any interest in lands, shall be void unless the contract, or some note or memorandum thereof, expressing the consideration, is in writing and subscribed by the party by whom the lease or sale is to be made, or by the party's lawful agent thereunto authorized in writing; and no such contract, when made by an agent, shall be entitled to record unless the authority of such agent be also recorded.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1945–2026 · leading case: Bouten v. Richard Miller Homes, Inc., 321 N.W.2d 895 (Minn. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bouten v. Richard Miller Homes, Inc., 321 N.W.2d 895 (Minn. 1982). · cites it 7× “Since we hold that oral purchase agreement offered to convey an interest in real estate violated the Statute of Frauds (Minn.Stat. § 513.05 (1980)), it is necessary to state in detail the facts concerning on-going negotiations between the parties over an extended period of time…”
Christie v. Est., 911 N.W.2d 833 (Minn. 2018). · cites it 4× “In addition, the district court concluded that the statute of frauds, which requires contracts for the sale of land to be in writing, Minn. Stat. § 513.05 (2016), prevented enforcement of the alleged contract.”
Est. of Peterson, 579 N.W.2d 488 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 12× “2d 133, 138-39 (1977) (contract for sale of land under Minn.Stat. § 513.05); Taylor v. Allen, 40 Minn.”
Schwinn v. Griffith, 303 N.W.2d 258 (Minn. 1981). · cites it 10× “The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that the statute of frauds governing the sale of real property, Minn.Stat. § 513.05 (1980), required a written acceptance by the “party to be charged.”
Nord v. Herreid, 305 N.W.2d 337 (Minn. 1981). · cites it 2× “Defendants’ answer to the complaint contains general denials to the allegations contained therein and affirmatively alleges that the written lease agreement fell within the statute of frauds, Minn.Stat. § 513.05, and that any allegations of oral promises contrary to the express…”
Blair v. Brownson, 197 S.W.3d 681 (Tenn. 2006). “108 (1996); Minn.Stat. § 513.05 (2002); Neb.Rev.Stat.”
Wensmann Realty, Inc. v. City of Eagan, 734 N.W.2d 623 (Minn. 2007). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 513.05 (2006). Here, evidence of the offer is not being used to prove the existence of a contract, but only to show that an oral offer was made.”
Amos Graves v. Michael Wayman, First Minnesota Bank, 859 N.W.2d 791 (Minn. 2015). · cites it 3× “2 (1977) (explaining that statute of frauds, which states that certain contracts “shall be void,” actually renders them voidable (citing Minn. Stat. § 513.05 (2014))); In re Sprain’s Estate, 199 Minn.”
SN4, LLC v. Anchor Bank, FSB, 848 N.W.2d 559 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “” Minn.Stat. § 513.05 (2012). I. The buyers argue that the district court erred by determining that the purported agreement fails to satisfy the subscription requirement of the statute of frauds.”
Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc., 689 N.W.2d 779 (Minn. 2004). · cites it 2× “See Minn. Stat. § 513.05 (2002). Dyrdal next claims that he “heard” of a “land exchange” that might have altered the sale terms in the purchase agreement, but he made no inquiry concerning a “land exchange.”
Nelson v. Smith, 349 N.W.2d 849 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “II Estoppel There is no dispute that the Statute of Frauds, as embodied in Minn.Stat. § 513.05 (1982), would be a defense to Nelson’s action if its effect is not vitiated by some fraudulent conduct on the part of Smith: Every contract for the leasing for a longer period than one…”
Ag Servs. of Am., Inc. v. Schroeder, 693 N.W.2d 227 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 513.05 (2004). Finally, there is no evidentiary support for a claim for breach of contract to sell the property because the Schroeders have failed to produce any evidence that their offers were accepted.”
Show all 39 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.