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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1844858/federal-land-bank-of-saint-paul... ↗

Full Text

1,077 chars

Minn.Stat. § 566.07 (1986). However, after reviewing the record we cannot conclude the district court erred by determining the issues in the unlawful detainer action by summary judgment because we can discern no prejudice to the Obermollers resulting from the summary proceedings. The Bank did not comply with the twenty-day provision in Rule 56.01 because it served its summary judgment motion at the same time it served its summons and complaint in the unlawful detainer action. However, since the Bank’s summary judgment motion, notice of motion, and supporting memoranda were served on January 22,1988 and the hearing on the summary judgment motion was not held until February 9, the Bank technically complied with the ten-day notice requirement of Rule 56.03. The record indicates the Obermollers received sufficient notice and were afforded adequate opportunity to argue against the summary judgment and raise issues of material fact for the court’s consideration. See Wikert v. Northern Sand and Gravel, Inc., 402 N.W.2d 178, 182 (Minn.Ct.App.1987), pet. for rev. denied

Other Sections in This Document (89)

Full Text