Laserfiche WebLink
JRH ~4 '95 00:~ RRNDRLL DEHMGOODRICH <br /> <br />P.4/4 <br /> <br />Page 3 <br />January 19, 1995 <br /> <br /> I have reviewed the deed recorded at the County Recorder's office <br /> relating to !Lot 3, Block 3, the Denny property. The deed contains <br /> no referenc4 to any restrictive covenants and therefore, even if <br /> such a reference were made in the purchase agreement, the covenant <br /> would not have survived the closing. <br /> <br /> Under the do~trlne of merger, the deed is conclusively presumed to <br /> express the Xinal agreement of the parties in the absence of fraud <br />· or mistake,~and contractual provisions omitted from the deed are <br /> waived. B-~ Construction v. Ru~tad Development Corp. 415 N.W.2d <br /> 330 (Minn. A~p. 1987). The acceptance of the deed acts as a waiver <br /> iof any right~ that might have existed by virtue of a claimed prior <br /> contract, i.~., the purchase agreement. St. Louis Park Investment <br /> co. v. R.L.i JQhnson Investment Co. 411 N.W.2d 288 (Minn. App. <br /> 1987). <br />I <br /> In considering the Statute Frauds, which requires contracts for the <br /> sale of reali estate to be in writing, and the doctrine of merger, <br /> which indicates that a deed is the final expression between the <br /> parties, an~, finally, the fact that the deed accepted by <br /> plaintiffs d~es not contain any terms relating tot hose conditions <br /> listed on th~ informational handout, leads to the only conclusion <br /> that can reached. This conclusion is that.the homeowners' <br /> assertion 1~ without merit. ~ad the parties intended for the <br /> conditions ~f the informational handout to be included in the <br /> development ~f the subdivision, restrictive covenants could have <br /> been recorde~ by including the restriction in the deeds and/or <br /> recording th~ covenants as part of the development. <br />! <br /> <br /> <br />