Wichelman v. Messner

83 N.W.2d 800, 250 Minn. 88 (1957)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Wichelman v. Messner

Minnesota Supreme Court
83 N.W.2d 800, 250 Minn. 88 (1957)

LJ

Facts

In 1897 H. F. Hoppenstedt conveyed a parcel out of lot 4 of his farm located in Sibley County, Minnesota, to the predecessors of Fred Messner, the Independent Consolidated School District No. 81 of Sibley County (the school district), and Victor and John Glaeser (collectively, the conveyees). The deed conveying the parcel contained a provision stating that if the parcel was not used and operated as a school or if the use and occupancy ceased, the parcel would revert back to the ownership of Hoppenstedt and his heirs, executors, and administrators. The parcel was used for school purposes from 1897 until 1946. In August 1946, the school district closed the school. In May 1952, the school district solicited bids for the purchase of the parcel. Marvin Wichelman (plaintiff) submitted a bid for $1,356, which the school district rejected. Fred Messner (defendant), who was the present owner of the Hoppenstedt farm, submitted a bid of $1,650, which the school district accepted. Wichelman then obtained quitclaim deeds from Hoppenstedt’s heirs and filed an action for the determination of adverse claims. The restriction from the original 1897 deed had never been rerecorded. At trial, the parties argued over the application of § 541.023, the Minnesota statute pertaining to restrictions and covenants appearing in documents more than 40 years old. Wichelman asserted that the parcel continued to be subject to the reverter contained in the 1897 deed, so that the heirs automatically had claim to the parcel and the quitclaim deeds from the heirs passed the land to Wichelman. The conveyees argued that § 541.023 prevented a property from being encumbered by a deed or restriction that was over 40 years old at the date of the act’s inception or that would be 40 years old as of January 1, 1948, unless the restriction was rerecorded. The trial court found for Wichelman, and the school district and Messner appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Murphy, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership