Agenda - Council - 05/23/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Page :3 January 19, 1995 I have reviewed the deed recorded at the County Recorder's office relating to Lot 3, Block 3, the Denny property. The deed contains no reference to any restrictive covenants and therefore, even if such a reference were made in the purchase agreement, the covenant woul~ not have survived the closing. Unde~the doctrine of merger, the deed is conclusively presLrmed to expreS_ s the final agreement of t_he parties in the absence of fraud or mistake, and contractual provisions omitted from the deed are waived. B-E Construction v. ~ustad Development Corp_. 415 N.W.2d 330 (Minn. App. 1987). The acceptance of the deed acts as a waiver of any rights that might have existed by virtue of a claimed prior contract, i.e., the purchase agreement. St. Louis ~ark Investment Co. v. R.L..Johnson Investment Co. 411 N.W.2d 288 (Minn. App. Z987)i. In considering the Statute Frauds, which requires contracts for the sale ~of real estate to be in writing, and the doctrine of merger, which indicates that a deed is the final expression between the parties, and, finally, the fact that the deed accepted .by plaintiffs does not contain any terms relating to those conditions listed on the informational handout, leads to the only conclusion that ~can be reached. This conclusion is that the homeowners' assertion is without merit. Had the parties intended for the conditions of the informational handout to be included in the development of the subdivision, restrictive covenants could have been ~re¢orded by including the restriction in the deeds and/or recoiling the covenants as part of the development. £ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I