Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 525.411 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ 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
MS 1974 [Repealed, 1975 c 347 s 144]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1949–1987 · leading case: Minnesota Odd Fellows Home v. Pogue, 73 N.W.2d 615 (Minn. 1955).
Minnesota Odd Fellows Home v. Pogue, 73 N.W.2d 615 (Minn. 1955). “*542 Defendant asserts, however, that the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain this action on the theory that the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction by virtue of the following statutes: § 525.411. “All claims against a decedent arising upon contract,…”
Schunk v. Hotchkiss, 43 N.W.2d 104 (Minn. 1950). “tion from the others; and (4) that the probate court not only had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the right to contribution) but also that such right either was one for adjudication by the district court as the court having general jurisdiction, or was one which might be asserted…”
Charles v. Hill, 260 N.W.2d 571 (Minn. 1977). “1974, § 525.411. Since the agreement extending Harold’s option was not drawn up until September 27, 1966, more than 9 months after the expiration of the filing period, the claim was then completely nonenforceable and could not constitute consideration.”
Milner v. First Nat'l Bank of Minneapolis, 37 N.W.2d 450 (Minn. 1949). “Appellant asserts, however, that by virtue of §§ 525.411 and 525.431 it became incumbent upon plaintiff to proceed as prescribed in said sections following defendant’s death.”
In re Est. of Renczykowski, 409 N.W.2d 888 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). “8-806 as follows: [A] claim by a third party to all or to a part of the assets in the hands of the representative is not a claim against the estate as such but is a claim to specific property and does not constitute a claim within the meaning of §§ 525.”
Halvorson v. Geurkink, 56 N.W.2d 793 (Minn. 1953). “The trial court dismissed the action against the representatives of Rolien’s estate because of plaintiff’s failure to comply with § 525.411 of the probate code which provides in part as follows: “All claims against a decedent arising upon contract, whether due or not due, shall…”
In re Est. of Kucera, 186 N.W.2d 538 (Minn. 1971). “While the jurisdictional issue is determinative, we feel compelled to comment by way of dictum on the issue of what constitutes sufficient cause for the probate court to grant a petition to allow a claim after time limited within the meaning of § 525.411, subd. 1. Unlike the…”
In re Est. of Meyer, 186 N.W.2d 535 (Minn. 1971). “53, and the petition to receive, hear, and allow a claim after time limited is permitted under § 525.411, subd. 1. The probate court issued an order setting April 9, 1969, as the time of hearing on the petition.”
State, Dep't of Pub. Welfare v. Zutz, 186 N.W.2d 535 (Minn. 1971). “53, and the petition to receive, hear, and allow a claim after time limited is permitted under § 525.411, subd. 1. *85 The probate court issued an order setting April 9, 1969, as the time of hearing on the petition.”
State, Dep't of Pub. Welfare v. Urban, 186 N.W.2d 538 (Minn. 1971). “While the jurisdictional issue is determinative, we feel compelled to comment by way of dictum on the issue of what constitutes sufficient cause for the probate court to grant a petition to allow a claim after time limited within the meaning of § 525.411, subd. 1. Unlike the…”
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.