Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 580.15 (2026)

Perpetuating Evidence Of Sale

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

Any party desiring to perpetuate the evidence of any sale made in pursuance of this chapter may procure:

(1) an affidavit of the publication of the notice of sale and of any notice of postponement to be made by the printer of the newspaper in which the same was inserted or by some person in the printer's employ knowing the facts;

(2) an affidavit or return of service of such notice upon the occupant of the mortgaged premises to be made by the officer or person making such service or, in case the premises were vacant or unoccupied at the time the service must be made, an affidavit or return showing that fact, to be made by the officer or person attempting to make such service;

(3) an affidavit by the person foreclosing the mortgage, or that person's attorney, or someone knowing the facts, setting forth the facts relating to the military service status of the owner of the mortgaged premises at the time of sale;

(4) an affidavit by the person foreclosing the mortgage, or that person's attorney, or someone having knowledge of the facts, setting forth the fact of service of notice of sale upon the secretary of the Treasury of the United States or the secretary's delegate in accordance with the provisions of Section 7425 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as amended by Section 109 of the Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966, and also setting forth the fact of service of notice of sale upon the commissioner of revenue of the state of Minnesota in accordance with the provisions of section 270C.63, subdivision 11. Any such affidavit recorded prior to May 16, 1967 shall be effective as prima facie evidence of the facts therein contained as though recorded subsequent to May 16, 1967;

(5) an affidavit by the person foreclosing the mortgage, or that person's attorney, or someone having knowledge of the facts, setting forth the names of the persons to whom a notice of sale was mailed as provided by section 580.032; and

(6) one or more affidavits by the person foreclosing the mortgage, or that person's attorney or a person having knowledge of the facts, stating:

(i) whether section 580.021, 580.04, 580.041, 580.042, 582.039, 582.041, or 582.042 applies to the foreclosure proceedings; and

(ii) if any or all of those sections apply, that all notices required under those sections have been provided.

Such affidavits and returns shall be recorded by the county recorder and they and the records thereof, and certified copies of such records, shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein contained.

The affidavit provided for in clause (3) hereof may be made and recorded for the purpose of complying with the provisions of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, and may be made and recorded at any time subsequent to the date of the mortgage foreclosure sale.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1986–2013 · leading case: Gerdin v. Princeton State Bank, 384 N.W.2d 868 (Minn. 1986).
Gerdin v. Princeton State Bank, 384 N.W.2d 868 (Minn. 1986). · cites it 2× “15 (1984) provides: Any party desiring to perpetuate the evidence of any sale made in pursuance of this chapter may procure: ****** (4) An affidavit by the person foreclosing the mortgage, or his attorney, or someone having knowledge of the facts, setting forth the fact of…”
Hunter v. Anchor Bank, N.A., 842 N.W.2d 10 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013). “The supreme court articulated this interpretation of the foreclosure-by-advertisement statutes for the first time in Moore v.”
Vacinek v. First Nat'l Bank of Pine City, 416 N.W.2d 795 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 580.15(4) (1984). Gerdin is therefore inapplicable to this case where the Vacineks have no underlying right to clear title, or a superior lien to that of the bank, simply by virtue of their obtaining a mortgage from the bank’s debtor.”
— Minn. Stat. § 580.15(4) — 1 case
Vacinek v. First Nat'l Bank of Pine City, 416 N.W.2d 795 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). “See Minn.Stat. § 580.15(4) (1984). Gerdin is therefore inapplicable to this case where the Vacineks have no underlying right to clear title, or a superior lien to that of the bank, simply by virtue of their obtaining a mortgage from the bank’s debtor.”
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.