When land is sold under an executory contract requiring the vendee to improve the same, and such contract is forfeited or surrendered after liens have attached by reason of such improvements, the title of the vendor shall be subject thereto; but the vendor shall not be personally liable if the contract was made in good faith. When improvements are made by one person upon the land of another, all persons interested therein otherwise than as bona fide prior encumbrancers or lienors shall be deemed to have authorized such improvements, in so far as to subject their interests to liens therefor. Any person who has not authorized the same may protect that person's interest from such liens by serving upon the persons doing work or otherwise contributing to such improvement within five days after knowledge thereof, written notice that the improvement is not being made at that person's instance, or by posting like notice, and keeping the same posted, in a conspicuous place on the premises. The service may be made by personal service or by certified mail to the last known address of the person doing work or otherwise contributing to the improvement. Mailed service is effective when mailed. As against a lessor no lien is given for repairs made by or at the instance of the lessee.
Notes of Decisions
Korsunsky Krank Erickson Architects, Inc. v. Walsh, 370 N.W.2d 29 (Minn. 1985).
· cites it 36× “The trial court found that the Walshes had specific knowledge of KKE’s services related to the property, and in fact had consented to, acquiesced and participated in the provision of those services but did not give statutory notice to protect their ownership interests in the…”
Eischen Cabinet Co. v. Hildebrandt, 683 N.W.2d 813 (Minn. 2004).
· cites it 4× “08 in pari materia with Minn.Stat. § 514.06 (2002), which under circumstances not applicable here, permits a person's interest in land to be protected from lien upon proper notice by certified mail.”
Master Asphalt Co. v. Voss Constr. Co., 535 N.W.2d 349 (Minn. 1995).
· cites it 34× “The court of appeals reversed, holding that the trial court erred in focusing on the notice and knowledge requirements of Minn.Stat. § 514.06 because those requirements are applicable only if the interested party has not authorized improvements on the property.”
Nasseff v. Schoenecker, 253 N.W.2d 374 (Minn. 1977).
· cites it 4× “He did not, however, serve or post notice on *490 the property that the improvements were not being made at his instance, as required by § 514.06, to protect his fee interest from potential liens of the lessees’ contractors.”
Custom Design Studio, a Div. of L.B. Baron Props., Inc. v. Chloe, Inc., 584 N.W.2d 430 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 4× “But under Minn.Stat. § 514.06 (1996), vendors with knowledge that *434 improvements are being made on their property can prevent attachment of a lien by serving notice of their objection within five days after learning of the improvements.”
Anderson v. Harrison, 160 N.W.2d 560 (Minn. 1968).
· cites it 4× “It found as a fact that the Harrisons had notice of the improvements but neglected to post disclaimer or serve notice on plaintiffs as required by § 514.06. The relief granted imposed a lien on the Harrisons’ interest but a personal judgment against them was denied.”
Eischen Cabinet Co. v. Hildebrandt, 671 N.W.2d 609 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 6× “08 in pari materia with Minn.Stat. § 514.06 (2002), which states that “[mjailed service is effective when mailed.”
Nichols v. L & O, INC., 196 N.W.2d 465 (Minn. 1972).
“See, § 514.06. The judgment for the debt secured by the mortgage was decreed to be a specific lien on the *19 vendees’ interest first and prior to the mechanics liens of the materialmen, which liens were otherwise declared of coordinate priority.”
Bond Elec. Co. v. Mill City Plastics, Inc., 102 N.W.2d 281 (Minn. 1960).
· cites it 5× “Accepting the findings of Referees Guilford and Rue but rejecting their conclusions of law, the Court is of the opinion that the notices posted by defendants Carlson were sufficient in content and in time to be valid within the meaning of Minn. Stat. 514.06, thereby rendering…”
Korsunsky Krank Erickson Architects, Inc. v. Walsh, 357 N.W.2d 144 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 6× “Within the one-year statutory period, Korsunsky began a lawsuit to foreclose its mechanics’ lien. Pursuant to statute, it gave notice to all property owners.”
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.