Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 513.076 (2026)

Necessity Of Contract

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Unless the individuals have executed a contract complying with the provisions of section 513.075, the courts of this state are without jurisdiction to hear and shall dismiss as contrary to public policy any claim by an individual to the earnings or property of another individual if the claim is based on the fact that the individuals lived together in contemplation of sexual relations and out of wedlock within or without this state.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: In Re Est. of Eriksen, 337 N.W.2d 671 (Minn. 1983).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re Est. of Eriksen, 337 N.W.2d 671 (Minn. 1983). · cites it 6× “-075 and its companion, section 513.076, do not apply to the facts of this case and that the court properly imposed a constructive trust on the disputed property.”

In Re Est. of Palmen, 574 N.W.2d 743 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 27× “The estate moved for summary judgment, arguing that under Minn.Stat. § 513.076 (1996), the district court did not have jurisdiction to hear Schneider's case.”

Marriage of Cummings v. Cummings, 376 N.W.2d 726 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 6× “Minn.Stat. § 513.076 provides that [ujnless the individuals have executed a contract complying with the provisions of section 513.”

In Re Est. of Palmen, 588 N.W.2d 493 (Minn. 1999). · cites it 6× “075, the courts of this state are without jurisdiction to hear and shall dismiss as contrary to public policy any claim by an individual to the earnings or property of another individual if the claim is based on the fact that the individuals lived together in contemplation of…”

Est. of Peterson, 579 N.W.2d 488 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 7× “Minn.Stat. § 513.076 (1996) provides: Unless the individuals have executed a contract complying with the provisions of section 513.”

Lefto v. Hoggsbreath Enter., Inc., 567 N.W.2d 746 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “See Minn.Stat. § 513.076 (1996) (providing that a court shall dismiss any claim by an extramarital cohabitant to the earnings or property of another as contrary to public policy, absent a valid contract concerning the parties' property and financial relations).”

Tourville v. Kowarsch, 365 N.W.2d 298 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 513.076. Here, the trial court found that no agreement existed as to any contributions made by appellant.”

Mechura v. McQuillan, 419 N.W.2d 855 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “Minn. Stat. § 513.076 . Appellant, relying on In re Estate of Eriksen, 337 N.”

Roatch v. Puera, 534 N.W.2d 560 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “Contracts regarding the property and financial relations of parties cohabitating in this state out of wedlock are enforceable only if in writing and signed by both parties.”

Taras Lendzyk v. Laura Lee Wrazidlo, Mortg. Elec. Reg. Sys., Inc., a Delaware Corp. (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “Minn. Stat. § 513.076 (2014) states: Unless the individuals have executed a contract complying with the provisions of section 513.”

Roy Arrieta v. Shannon Smith (8th Cir. BAP 2025). “075 (2024) (rendering unenforceable any contract concerning property or financial relations between unmarried, cohabitating parties who contemplate sexual relations unless the contract is signed and in writing and is sought to be enforced after termination of the relationship);…”

In re the Marriage of: Todd Emil Nelson v. Leslie Ann Nelson (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). “§ 513.076 , unless the individuals signed a written contract and sought enforcement after the relationship was over.”

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.