Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 541. LIMITATION OF TIME, COMMENCING ACTIONS
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 541.17 (2026)

New Promise Must Be In Writing

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

No acknowledgment or promise shall be evidence of a new or continuing contract sufficient to take the case out of the operation of this chapter unless the same is contained in some writing signed by the party to be charged thereby; but this section shall not alter the effect of a payment of principal or interest.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1961–2026 · leading case: Bethesda Lutheran Church v. Twin City Constr. Co., 356 N.W.2d 344 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bethesda Lutheran Church v. Twin City Constr. Co., 356 N.W.2d 344 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “Limitation of time, Writing requirement Even though Twin City’s actions may have induced Bethesda’s reasonable reliance, Twin City and Building Specialties contend that Minn.Stat. § 541.17 (1978) nullifies application of equitable estoppel.”
In Re Est. of Fauskee, 497 N.W.2d 324 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “The trial court also found that John Fauskee’s oral acknowledgment of the notes made after the statute of limitations had run tolled the statute of limitations.”
In re the Est. of Oria Albert Brinkmeier (Minn. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 6× “See Minn. Stat. § 541.17 (2024); Minn. Stat. § 524.”
Schueller v. Knapp, 107 N.W.2d 376 (Minn. 1961). “Plaintiff counters with a claim that when the statement was presented, upon defendants’ request for additional time to pay, plaintiff gave them “eight to ten years time for paying the balance.”
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.