Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Real Property Partition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee recommends passage of real property update: partitions, eminent domain notice, retroactive transfer-on-death deed fix
Summary
Senate File 202, a technical real-property bill presented to the House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee, modernizes Minnesota’s partition statute, clarifies notice rules in eminent domain appeals and makes limited retroactive changes to transfer-on-death (TOD) deed provisions. The committee recommended the bill be placed on the General
Representative Feist presented Senate File 202 to the Minnesota House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee on Feb. 20 as a package of largely technical, bipartisan real-property reforms drafted with input from the Minnesota State Bar Association.
The bill’s principal change modernizes partition actions (the process to divide or sell property owned by multiple parties). Real-estate attorney Kevin Dunleavy explained that the existing statute dates to 1905 and is oriented to agricultural partitions; SF 202 would reorder the statute for today’s practice, generally allow for a single referee (rather than three), and permit use of a realtor as the referee to reduce costs because a sale typically already involves a realtor commission.
"That cuts away the layer of cost," Dunleavy said, noting the change is intended to make partition proceedings more affordable and to give judges clearer authority and discretion.
The bill also clarifies notice requirements in eminent-domain appeals so that when only one of multiple co-owners appeals, the appeals process need not require notice to every co-owner, improving efficiency and reducing cost in large condemnation matters.
Finally, SF 202 makes a narrowly targeted retroactive correction to transfer-on-death (TOD) deed provisions that were intended to avoid probate but were not made retroactive in prior legislation; the bill does not make insurance provisions retroactive, per stakeholder agreement.
Committee members voted to recommend passage and to place the bill on the General Register by voice vote.
Ending: The committee advanced the bill to the General Register; sponsors and counsel said the changes are technical and intended to reduce litigation costs and clarify long-standing statutory ambiguities.
