Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Federal Land Bank of Saint Paul v. Obermoller, 429 N.W.2d 251 (1988)

Citation
Federal Land Bank of Saint Paul v. Obermoller, 429 N.W.2d 251 (1988)
Parent Document
Federal Land Bank of Saint Paul v. Obermoller, 429 N.W.2d 251 (1988)
Jurisdiction
Minnesota (state)
Effective Date
1988-09-06

Other Sections in This Document (89)

Full Text

1,215 chars
The Bank argued that the only issues for determination in unlawful detainer proceedings are whether the facts alleged in the complaint are true, and asserted there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding the Obermollers’ right to possess the property. The Obermollers argued they had entered into an oral rental agreement with the Bank which allowed them to retain possession and that the issues of rental agreement and consideration were fact issues for trial. They also asserted the letter from the Bank’s attorney advising the Obermollers’ lawyer that the Obermollers’ redemption period was about to expire was a notice to quit and that they were entitled to retain possession because of the Bank’s alleged reprisal motives. The Obermollers claimed the Bank’s notice of foreclosure was invalid and asserted they did not exercise their right of homestead designation because the Bank’s notice of homestead designation allegedly was “vague and ambiguous” and confusing. Finally, the Ober-mollers claimed they had an equitable right under state and federal law to remain on the property until the Bank decided to sell the property and afforded them an opportunity to exercise their right of first refusal.