§
Subdivision 1.Grounds.
An order of attachment that is intended to provide security for the satisfaction of a judgment may be issued only in the following situations:
(1) when the respondent has assigned, secreted, or disposed of, or is about to assign, secrete, or dispose of, any of the respondent's nonexempt property, with intent to delay or defraud the respondent's creditors;
(2) when the respondent has removed, or is about to remove, any of the respondent's nonexempt property from this state, with intent to delay or defraud the respondent's creditors;
(3) when the respondent has converted or is about to convert any of the respondent's nonexempt property into money or credits, for the purpose of placing the property beyond the reach of the respondent's creditors;
(4) when the respondent has committed an intentional fraud giving rise to the claim upon which the civil action is brought;
(5) when the respondent has committed any act or omission, for which the respondent has been convicted of a felony, giving rise to the claim upon which the civil action is brought; or
(6) when the respondent has violated the law of this state respecting unfair, discriminatory, and other unlawful practices in business, commerce, or trade, including but not limited to any of the statutes specifically enumerated in section 8.31, subdivision 1.
§
Subd. 2.Quasi-in-rem jurisdiction.
Attachment may be used to obtain quasi-in-rem jurisdiction over a party to the extent consistent with due process of law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
26
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1983–2024 · leading case:
Bongard v. Bongard, 342 N.W.2d 156 (Minn. Ct. App. 1983).
Bongard v. Bongard, 342 N.W.2d 156 (Minn. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 9× “Laws 1285, 1286 (codified at Minn. Stat. § 570.02 (1982)). The Minnesota Supreme Court found portions of the act unconstitutionally overbroad in light of United States Supreme Court decisions.”
Olson v. Ische, 330 N.W.2d 710 (Minn. 1983).
· cites it 10× “This is an appeal from an order of the Carver County District Court denying defendants’ motion for an order vacating a writ of attachment or, alternatively, for an order increasing the attachment bond, in which defendants challenge the constitutionality of our attachment statute…”
Allstate Sales & Leasing Co. v. Geis, 412 N.W.2d 30 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 4× “See Minn.Stat. § 570.02, subd. 1. A party may attach the assets of an opposing party in accord with the statute’s provisions any time after commencing a civil action for the recovery of money.”
Morrison v. Doyle, 570 N.W.2d 692 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 21× “A court may issue an order of attachment to provide security for satisfaction of a judgment in, among others, the following situations: (1) when the respondent has assigned, secreted, or disposed of, or is about to assign, secret or dispose of, any of the respondent’s nonexempt…”
In Re Supervised Voluntary Dissolution of Marich Constr. Co., 391 N.W.2d 899 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 10× “Brelje argues that the affidavit submitted by the Zywiecs was inadequate to support a writ of attachment under the requirements of Minn.Stat. § 570.02 (1984). Specifically, he maintains that the affidavit does not contain sufficient facts from which one could reasonably conclude…”
Morrison v. Doyle, 582 N.W.2d 237 (Minn. 1998).
· cites it 3× “The trial court also found that the underlying claim against Doyle sounded in contract, but was premised on Doyle’s having, committed an intentional fraud against the Morrisons, thereby providing a basis for the attachment under Minn.Stat. § 570.02, subd. 1(4) (1996). 1 Pursuant…”
Kranz v. Koenig, 484 F. Supp. 2d 997 (D. Minnesota 2007).
· cites it 2× “026 require a claimant to demonstrate the probability of success on the merits by establishing one of grounds listed in Minn.Stat. § 570.02. See Minn.Stat. § 570.”
Wenzel v. Mathies, 542 N.W.2d 634 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “Three grounds for attachment apply: (1) when a party did or is about to transfer or dispose of its property with the intent to delay or defraud its creditors; (2) when a party removed or is about to remove property from this state to delay or defraud creditors; and (3) when a…”
Michael-Curry Companies v. Knutson Shareholders Liquidating Trust, 423 N.W.2d 407 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “Because the sole purpose of the Trust was to liquidate and distribute Trust assets, proof of fraudulent or dilatory intent to dispose of the assets or intentional avoidance of creditors would be virtually impossible, making attachment unavailable.”
Dannheim Dev., Inc. v. Mogler, 412 N.W.2d 398 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 4× “ISSUE Did the trial court err in vacating the preliminary attachment order? ANALYSIS Dannheim claims the trial court erred in vacating the preliminary attachment.”
Wilson v. Mitchell, 349 N.W.2d 586 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 6× “Constitutionality of 1980 attachment statute The writ of attachment in this case was issued pursuant to the 1980 version of Minn.Stat. § 570.02, which provided: To obtain such writ, the plaintiff, his agent or attorney, shall make affidavit that a cause of action exists against…”
— Minn. Stat. § 570.02(2)(b)(2)(ii) — 1 case
Bongard v. Bongard, 342 N.W.2d 156 (Minn. Ct. App. 1983).
“Laws 1285, 1286 (codified at Minn. Stat. § 570.02 (1982)). The Minnesota Supreme Court found portions of the act unconstitutionally overbroad in light of United States Supreme Court decisions.”
— Minn. Stat. § 570.02(4) — 2 cases
Bongard v. Bongard, 342 N.W.2d 156 (Minn. Ct. App. 1983).
“Laws 1285, 1286 (codified at Minn. Stat. § 570.02 (1982)). The Minnesota Supreme Court found portions of the act unconstitutionally overbroad in light of United States Supreme Court decisions.”
Wilson v. Mitchell, 349 N.W.2d 586 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984).
“Constitutionality of 1980 attachment statute The writ of attachment in this case was issued pursuant to the 1980 version of Minn.Stat. § 570.02, which provided: To obtain such writ, the plaintiff, his agent or attorney, shall make affidavit that a cause of action exists against…”
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.