No action for the recovery of real estate or the possession thereof shall be maintained unless it appears that the plaintiff, the plaintiff's ancestor, predecessor, or grantor was seized or possessed of the premises in question within 15 years before the beginning of the action.
Such limitations shall not be a bar to an action for the recovery of real estate assessed as tracts or parcels separate from other real estate, unless it appears that the party claiming title by adverse possession or the party's ancestor, predecessor, or grantor, or all of them together, shall have paid taxes on the real estate in question at least five consecutive years of the time during which the party claims these lands to have been occupied adversely.
The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not apply to actions relating to the boundary line of lands, which boundary lines are established by adverse possession, or to actions concerning lands included between the government or platted line and the line established by such adverse possession, or to lands not assessed for taxation.
Notes of Decisions
Hebert v. City of Fifty Lakes, 744 N.W.2d 226 (Minn. 2008).
· cites it 8× “Ejectment The City asserts that the landowners’ claim for ejectment is time-barred *233 by the 15-year statute of limitations set forth in Minn.Stat. § 541.02 (2006), which provides: “No action for the recovery of real estate or the possession thereof shall be maintained unless…”
Grubb v. State, 433 N.W.2d 915 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 27× “The trial court found that the disputed property was part of the whole parcel of property for which taxes were separately assessed to the college, but that the disputed property itself was not a separately assessed parcel within the meaning of Minn.Stat. § 541.02 (1986). It…”
Ganje v. Schuler, 659 N.W.2d 261 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 7× “After setting out the 15 year adverse-possession period, Minn.Stat. § 541.02 (2002), states: Such limitations shall not be a bar to an action for the recovery of real estate assessed as tracts or parcels separate from other real estate, unless it appears that the party claiming…”
Wojahn v. Johnson, 297 N.W.2d 298 (Minn. 1980).
· cites it 4× “Essentially, plaintiff Richard Wojahn testified that the fence existed along the “northern border” of his property when he inspected it in 1963.”
Dahlin v. Kroening, 796 N.W.2d 503 (Minn. 2011).
· cites it 2× “1(a) (2010), and a fifteen-year statute of limitations for claims relating to the recovery of real estate, see Minn.Stat. § 541.02 (2010). Similarly, there are important public policy questions about whether all judgments should be subject to renewal limitations, and if not, on…”
Beer v. Minnesota Power & Light Co., 400 N.W.2d 732 (Minn. 1987).
· cites it 5× “Accordingly, although the 15-year limitation imposed by Minn.Stat. § 541.02 (1986) is applicable in cases in which there has been an actual taking of property, we hold that in actions for inverse condemnation or compensation for damages resulting from the limitation of access…”
Sampair v. Vill. of Birchwood, 784 N.W.2d 65 (Minn. 2010).
· cites it 4× “See Minn.Stat. § 541.02 (2008). If subdivision 6 of the MTA is to have any *77 meaning, then a party who cannot prove continuous use of the easement for the period required under the MTA as interpreted by our court must nevertheless be afforded the opportunity to establish…”
Gabler v. Fedoruk, 756 N.W.2d 725 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “2d 907, 910 (1968); see Minn.Stat. § 541.02 (2006) (providing the statute of limitations for actions to recover real estate).”
Ebenhoh v. Hodgman, 642 N.W.2d 104 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “2d at 415 ; see also Minn.Stat. § 541.02 (2000). Evidence tending to establish adverse possession must be strictly construed, “without resort to any inference or presumption in favor of the disseizor, but with the indulgence of every presumption against him.”
Allred v. Reed, 362 N.W.2d 374 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 541.02 (1984). The acquiescence required is not merely passive consent to the existence of a fence or sod strip, but rather is conduct or lack thereof from which assent to the fence * * * as a boundary line may be reasonably inferred.”
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.