Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 513.57 (2026)

Liability For Error, Inaccuracy, Or Omission

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Subdivision 1.No liability.

Unless the prospective buyer and seller agree to the contrary in writing, a seller is not liable for any error, inaccuracy, or omission of any information delivered under sections 513.52 to 513.60 if the error, inaccuracy, or omission was not within the personal knowledge of the seller, or was based entirely on information provided by other persons as specified in section 513.56, subdivision 3, and ordinary care was exercised in transmitting the information. It is not a violation of sections 513.52 to 513.60 if the seller fails to disclose information that could be obtained only through inspection or observation of inaccessible portions of the real estate or could be discovered only by a person with expertise in a science or trade beyond the knowledge of the seller.

Subd. 2.Liability.

A seller who fails to make a disclosure as required by sections 513.52 to 513.60 and was aware of material facts pertaining to the real property is liable to the prospective buyer. A person injured by a violation of this section may bring a civil action and recover damages and receive other equitable relief as determined by the court. An action under this subdivision must be commenced within two years after the date on which the prospective buyer closed the purchase or transfer of the real property.

Subd. 3.Other actions.

Nothing in sections 513.52 to 513.60 precludes liability for an action based on fraud, negligent misrepresentation, or other actions allowed by law.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2009–2021 · leading case: Miller v. Lankow, 801 N.W.2d 120 (Minn. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Miller v. Lankow, 801 N.W.2d 120 (Minn. 2011). · cites it 12× “The court concluded that “there is no other evidence as to the cause or origin of the moisture intrusion and the extent of the mold,” and accordingly granted summary judgment and dismissed all claims for lack of evidence.”

Miller v. Lankow, 776 N.W.2d 731 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 8× “Appellant also claims that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to previous homeowners under Minn.Stat. § 513.57, subd. 2 (2008). We affirm.”

Vershey v. Madison (D. Minnesota 2021). · cites it 2× “June 29, 2020) (quoting Minn. Stat. § 513.57 , subd. 2). The common law fraud claim requires, among other elements, “a false representation by a party of a past or existing material fact susceptible of knowledge .”

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.