# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 26 56

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Mar y Jan e Bad rawi

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

W el ls Farg o Ho m e Mo rtg ag e, In c.,
no w kn own as Well s Fa rg o B an k, N.A.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: May 16, 2 01 3 Fil ed : J un e 2 8, 2 01 3

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, MURPHY, an d S MITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ MURP HY, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Afte r Mar y Ja ne Bad rawi de fau lt ed on m or tg ag e pa y m en ts , W el ls Farg o Hom e Mo rtg ag e, In c. fo recl os ed on he r ho m e an d pu rch as ed th e pr op ert y in a fo recl os ur e

sa le

. Bad rawi th en fil ed an act io n i n s t a t e c o u rt arg ui ng th at th e fo recl os ur e was in va li d be cau se W el ls Farg o ha d vi o l a t e d M i n n . S ta t. § 58 0.0 32 , s ub d. 3 by fa il in g to reco rd a no ti ce of pe nd en cy of fo recl os ur e be fo re pu bl is hi ng th e fo recl os ur e no ti ce.W el ls Farg o rem ov ed th e act io n to th e fed eral di st ric t co ur t whi ch th en gr an te d it s 1

m ot io n t o d is m is s. Ba dr awi a pp eal s, an d we a ffi rm

.

I.

In 20 03 Bad rawi ob ta in ed a lo an fro m Mi dAm eri ca Mo rtg ag e C o r p o r a ti on

se cu red by a m or tg ag e on he r ho m e in Ro ge rs , Mi nn es ot a. Mi dAm eri ca su bs eq ue nt ly

a s s i gn ed th e m or tg ag e to W el ls Farg o. Acco rd in g to Bad rawi 's co m pl ai nt , sh e th ere a f te r "fe ll be hi nd on

. . . lo an pa y m en ts ," "m ad e an un su cces sf ul at te m pt to

m od ify [th e] m or tg ag e," an d d efau lt ed on th e lo an

.

W el ls Farg o el ect ed to fo recl os e on Bad rawi 's ho m e "b y ad ve rti se m en t," whi ch al l o w e d i t to co m

m en ce pr oc eed in gs by pu bl is hi ng a fo recl os ur e no ti ce in a lo cal

ne wsp ap er rat he r th an by fil in g a jud ic ia l act io n. See Ja ck so n v. Mo rtg

. Elec

. Reg is tra ti on Sy s., In c., 77 0 N.W .2d 48 7, 49 4 (Mi nn

. 20 09 ). On Apr il 19 , 20 11 W el ls Farg o reco rd ed a pe nd en cy of fo recl os ur e no ti ce in th e Hen ne pi n Co un ty real es ta te

reco rd s. The sa m e da y it al so be ga n pu bl is hi ng th e no ti ce in a lo cal le ga l ne wsp ap er, whe re it ap pe ared fo r th e ne xt si x w e e k s

. On Apr il 21 , it s rep res en ta ti ve vi si te d Bad rawi 's ho m e an d se rv ed th e no ti ce on he r da ug ht er. W el ls Farg o th en pu rch as ed th e p ro pe rty at a fo recl os ur e sa le on Ju ne 13

.

On D e cem

be r 2, 20 11 Bad rawi fil ed th is act io n in st at e co ur t se ek in g to in va li da te th e fo recl os ur e pr oc eed in g. Sh e cl ai m ed th at W el ls Farg o h a d fai le d to

co m pl y wit h Mi nn es ot a's req ui rem en ts fo r fo recl os ur e by ad ve rti se m en t, an d al le ge d si x co un ts in cl ud in g frau d, la ck of st an di ng to fo recl os e, im pr op er se rv ic e, fai lu re to di sc lo se th e lo an as si gn m en t, an d d e f e c t i ve an d un ti m el y pu bl ic at io n of th e fo recl os ur e no ti ce. Onl y co un t si x, al le gi ng un ti m el y pu bl ic at io n of th e fo recl os ur e

The Hon or ab le Don ov an W

. Fran k, Uni te d St at e Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of Mi nn es ot a.
-2

-no ti ce, is at is su e on ap pe al

. Tha t co un t st at es th at by bo th pu bl is hi ng an d reco rd in g

no ti ce of fo recl os ur e on th e sa m e d ay , W el ls Farg o h ad vi ol at ed th e req ui rem en t of Mi nn

. St at

. § 58 0.0 32 , su bd

. 3 th at a fo recl os in g en t i t y " r eco rd a no ti ce of th e pe nd en cy of th e fo recl os ur e

. . . be fo re th e fir st da te of pu bl ic at io n of th e fo recl os ur e

no ti ce" (em

ph as is ad de d)

.

We l l s F a r g o rem ov ed th e cas e to fed eral di st ric t co ur t. It th en m ov ed to di sm is s an d Bad rawi m ov ed to rem an d. The di st ric t co ur t de cl in ed to rem an d an d
gr an te d W el ls Farg o's di sm is sa l m ot io n aft er it co nc lu de d th at Bad rawi ha d fai le d to
st at e a cl ai m on an y co un t. W it h res pe ct to co un t si x, th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at Bad rawi co ul d no t ch al le ng e th e fo recl os ur e ba se d on W el ls Farg o's no nc om pl ia nc e

w it h Mi nn

. St at

. § 58 0.0 32 , su bd

. 3. The co ur t fir st ob se rv ed th at an ot he r st at ut e , Mi nn

. St at

. § 58 0.0 2, pr ov id ed th e co re "[r ]equ is it es to fo recl os e" by ad ve rti se m en t. It po in te d ou t th at Mi nn

. St at

. § 58 0.0 2 req ui red (1 ) an act of de fau lt by Bad rawi , (2 ) la ck of an y ot he r pr oc eed in g to reco ve r th e de bt , (3 ) a pr io r reco rd in g of th e m or tg ag e

an d a n y as si gn m en ts , an d (4 ) th e pr ov is io n to Bad rawi of in fo rm at io n rel at ed to fo recl os ur e pr ev en ti on se rv i c e s be fo re th e fo recl os ur e no ti ce was reco rd ed

. Si nc e W el ls Farg o ha d co m

pl ie d wit h each of th e req ui rem en ts in Mi nn

. St at

. § 58 0.0 2, th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d t ha t i ts ob li ga ti on s t o B ad rawi ha d b een sat is fie d.

The di st ric t cou rt nex t add res se d Min n. Stat

. § 58 0.0 32 , su bd

. 3, de te rm in in g th at it im po se d no ad di ti on al bu rd en on W el ls Farg o wit h res pe ct to Bad rawi

. It lo ok ed to Hol m es v. Cru m m et t, 13 N.W

. 92 4 (Mi nn

. 18 82 ), in whi ch th e Mi nn es ot a S u p r e me C o ur t ha d co nc lu de d th at a ho m eo wne r m ay no t se t as id e a fo recl os ur e ba se d o n " an om is si on of s om e pr es cri be d act whi ch can no t h av e aff ect ed hi m , and

can no t ha v e b e e n p r es cri be d fo r hi s be ne fit ." Id

. at 92 4. A ho m eo wne r is in st ead

en ti tl ed to ch al le ng e on ly th e "s te ps in th e pr oc eed in g whi ch are cal cu la te d to pr ot ect [h er] in te res ts ." Id . Th e di st ric t co ur t ob se rv ed th at Mi nn . Sta t. § 58 0.0 32 pro te ct s

on ly th os e wit h "a red eem ab le in te res t in real pr op ert y " who "re qu es t

. . . no ti ce of a

m or tg ag e fo recl os ur e by ad ve r t i s e ment ," Mi nn

. St at

. § 58 0.0 32 , su bd

. 1, an d th at

-3

-Bad rawi ha d no t req ue st ed su ch no ti ce be cau se "as th e m or tg ag or an d oc cu pa nt of th e

rel ev an t pr op ert y " sh e ha d rece iv ed di rect no ti ce. Si nc e Mi nn

. St at

. § 58 0.0 32 , su bd

. 3 co ul d no t ha ve be en "p res cri be d fo r [Bad rawi 's] be ne fit ," Hol m es , 13 N.W

. at 92 4, he r cl ai m to rel ie f un de r th at st at ut e fai le d.

The di st ric t co ur t al so reco gn iz e d in a fo ot no te th at it s co nc lu si on co nf li ct ed wit h Ru iz v. 1s t Fi de li ty Loa n Serv ic in g, LLC, A11 -1 08 1, 20 12 W L 76 23 13 (Mi nn

. Ct . Ap p. Mar . 12 , 20 12 ) (u np ub li sh ed ), in whi ch a pa ne l o f th e Mi nn es ot a Co ur t o f App eal s ha d gr an te d a ho m eo wne r rel ie f on a si m il ar cl ai m ba se d on th e sa m e st at ut e. Id

. at *5

. Si nc e th e di st ric t co ur t co ns id ered Ru iz ne it he r co nt ro ll in g no r pe rs ua si ve , it el ect ed no t to fo ll ow it s reas on in g. Bad rawi ap pe al s on ly th e di s tri ct co ur t's di sm is sa l o f co un t s ix

. 2

II.

W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t's gr an t of a m ot io n to di sm is s de no vo , ta ki ng th e fact s al le ge d i n t he co m

pl ai nt as tru e. Zut z v. Nels on , 60 1 F.3 d 84 2, 84 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 )

. To s u r vi ve a m ot io n to di sm is s, a co m pl ai nt m us t co nt ai n "en ou gh fact s to
st at e a cl ai m

to rel ie f th at is pl au si bl e o n i ts face ," Bel l At l. Co rp . v. Twom bl y , 55 0 U.S. 54 4, 57 0 (2 00 7) , whi ch req ui res a pl ai nt iff to "p le ad [] fact ua l co nt en t th at al lo ws th e co ur t to dr aw th e reas on ab le in fere nc e th at th e de fen da nt is li ab l e f o r th e

m is co nd uc t al le ge d," Ash cro ft v. Iq ba l, 55 6 U.S. 66 2, 67 8 (2 00 9)

. W he n ap pl y in g Mi nn es ot a la w un de r ou r di ve rs it y juri sd ic ti on , we are bo un d by th e de ci si on s of th e Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t. Doe v. Bax te r Heal th care Co rp ., 38 0 F.3 d 39 9, 40 7 (8 th

W el ls Farg o arg ue s th at Bad rawi waiv ed he r arg um en t on co un t si x by fai li ng 2 to rai se it be lo w, ci ti ng Ja sp ers on v. Pu ro la to r Co ur ie r Co rp ., 76 5 F.2 d 73 6, 74 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 85 ), bu t Badr awi has su ffi ci en tl y pre se rv ed th e p oi nt by of feri ng as a fact ua l

an d le ga l ba si s fo r co un t si x th at "[n ]oti ce of pe nd en cy was fil ed on 04 /1 9/ 20 11 an d fir st pu bl ic at io n was on 04 /1 9/ 20 11 ; a v io la ti on of M in n. St at . § 58 0.0 32 , s ub d. 3." See P CTV Gol d, In c. v. Sp eed Net, LLC, 5 08 F.3d 11 37 , 11 45 n.5 (8t h C ir. 2 00 7)

. -4

-Ci r. 20 04 ). If th e st at e su pr em e co u r t h a s n o t r ul ed on a pa rti cu la r is su e, we "m us t de te rm in e wha t ru le [it ] wou ld ap pl y " by lo ok in g to ot he r "[s ]tate m en ts m ad e by th e

. . . cou rt" an d " ru li ng s b y in feri or st at e ap pe ll at e co ur ts ." Id

.

Bad rawi co nt en ds fir st th at Mi nn es ot a la w req ui res "ex act co m pl ia nc e" wit h

m or tg ag e fo recl os ur e la ws, ci ti ng Ja ck so n, 77 0 N.W .2d at 49 4 (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Sh e arg ue s th at W el ls Farg o fai le d to co m pl y wit h Mi nn

. St at

. § 5 8 0

. 0 3 2 , su bd

. 3 by
pu bl i s hi ng th e fo recl os ur e no ti ce on th e sa m e da y it reco rd ed th e no ti ce, th ereb y

ren de rin g "t he pr oc eed in gs

. . . vo id ." Cl iff or d v

. To ml i n s on , 64 N.W

. 38 1, 38 1 (Mi nn . 18 95 ).

Bad rawi al so ch al le ng es th e di st ric t co ur t's co nc lu si on th at sh e was no t en ti tl ed
to en fo rce Mi nn

. St at

. § 58 0.0 32 , su bd

. 3. Sh e ci t e s M i nn

. St at

. § 55 9.0 1, whi ch
st at es th at "[a ]ny pe rs on in po ss es si on of real pr op ert y

. . . m ay br in g an act io n ag ai ns t

an ot he r

. . . f

or th e pu rp os e of de te rm in in g su ch a dv ers e cl ai m an d th e rig ht s of th e pa rti es ." Bad rawi co nt en ds th at Mi nn

. St at

. § 58 0.0 32 , su bd

. 3 was im pl em en te d to
pr ot ect ho m eo wne r s an d he r rig ht s wil l be pr ejud ic ed if sh e is un ab le to en fo rce it

. Bad rawi fin al ly rel ie s on Ru iz , 2 01 2 W L 7 62 31 3, at *5

. In th at cas e a h o meo w n er ha d br ou gh t a si m il ar ch al le ng e fo r un ti m el y pu bl ic at io n un de r Mi nn

. St at

. § 58 0.0 32 ,
s ub d. 3, an d a pa ne l of th e Mi nn es ot a Co ur t of App eal s gr an te d he r re l i e f a f t e r

co nc lu di ng th at th e fo recl os ur e was "v oi d fo r fai lu re to st ric t l y c o m pl y wit h" th e st at ut e's ti m in g re qu ire m en t. Id

.

Alt ho ug h we a g ree th at th e Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t ha s st ric tl y co ns tru ed
st at e fo recl os ur e st at ut e s , M i n n

. St at . § 58 0.0 32 , s ub d. 3 do es no t pr ov id e Bad rawi rel ie f in th is cas e. The Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t co nc lu d e d in Hol m es th at a h o meo wne r m ay no t ch al le ng e a fo recl os ur e act io n ba se d on "an om is si on of so me pr es cri be d act whi ch can no t ha ve affe ct ed hi m , an d can no t ha ve be en pr es cri be d fo r hi s be ne fit ." 13 N.W

. at 92 4. Neit he r t he Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t no r th e st at e's

-5

-lo wer co ur ts ha ve ev er ov erru le d or na rro wed th e ru li ng in Hol m es , an d it is th eref or e bi nd in g o n o ur co ur t i n i nt erp ret in g M in ne so ta law. See Doe, 3 80 F.3d at 4 07

.

Bad rawi is no t am on g th e c l a s s w ho se in te res ts Mi nn . S ta t. § 58 0.0 32 , s ub d. 3 was en act ed to pr ot ect

. M i n n

. S t at

. § 58 0.0 32 pr ot ect s th os e wit h "a red eem ab le in te res t in real pr op ert y " by al lo win g th em to "re co rd a req ue st fo r no ti ce fo recl os ur e

. . . wit h th e co un ty reco rd er." Mi nn

. St at

. § 58 0.0 32 , su bd

. 1. Thi s pr ov is io n is m os t

se ns ib ly read to pr ot ect th e in te res t of th ird pa rti es who own a "re de em ab le in te res t" in m or tg ag ed pr op e r t y w h ic h m ig ht be jeop ard iz ed if th e m or tg ag or fo recl os ed wit ho ut no ti ce. A se co nd ary m or tg ag or 's in te res t wou ld be at ris k, fo r ex am pl e, if th e pr im ary m or tg ag or fo recl os ed on th e pr op ert y an d th e sa le pr oc eed s were in su ffi ci en t
to pa y bo th cl ai m s. In th at cas e a se co nd ary m or tg ag or wou ld req ui re no ti ce be fo re th e co m m en cem en t o f fo recl os ur e p ro ceed in gs in ord er t o p ro te ct it s i nt eres t.

Hom eo wne rs do no t req ui re th e sa m e pa rti cu la r type of no ti ce pr ot ect io n si nc e

a se pa rat e M i n n e s ot a st at ut e req ui res pe rs on al se rv ic e of fo recl os ur e no ti ce to "t he
pe rs on in po ss es si on of th e m or tg ag ed pr em is es ." See Mi nn

. St at

. § 58 0.0 3. The re is no di sp ut e at th is st ag e th at W el ls Farg o pr op erl y se rv ed Bad raw i wit h no ti ce in

co m pl ia nc e wit h Mi nn . S ta t. § 5 80 .03 . Sin ce Bad rawi rece iv ed pe rs on al se rv ic e of th e fo recl os ur e no ti ce, s h e co ul d no t ha ve be en am on g th os e fo r who se be ne fit th e

se pa rat e no ti ce req ui rem en t of Mi nn

. St at

. § 58 0.0 32 , su b d

. 3 w a s e na ct ed

. Sh e is

acco rd in gl y un ab le to se ek rel ie f by ch al le ngi ng W el ls Fargo 's al le ge d no nc om pl ia nc e wit h t he st at ut e. See Ho lm es , 13 N.W . at 9 24

.

Our co nc lu si on is al so co ns is te nt wit h "ru li ng s by in feri or st at e ap pe ll at e

co ur ts ." Doe , 38 0 F.3 d at 40 7. In Farm Cred it Ban k of St

. Pau l v. Koh ne n, 49 4 N.W .2d 44 (Mi nn

. Ct

. App

. 19 92 ), a pa ne l of th e Mi nn es ot a Co ur t of App eal s no te d th at "[i ]f th e rig ht s of th e pa rti es to be fo recl os ed up on wer e n o t p r e ju d i ced by th e la ck of no ti ce

. . . [Mi nn es ot a] co ur ts ha ve un ifo rm ly he ld th at se rv ic e was va li d." Id

. at 48

. Bad rawi 's rig ht s co ul d n o t ha ve be en pr ejud ic ed by W el ls Farg o's al le ge d

-6

-fai lu re t o c om pl y wit h t he no ti ce re qu ire m en t o f Mi nn . Sta t. § 58 0.0 32 be cau se sh e ha d rece iv ed pe rs on al no ti ce un de r Mi nn

. St at

. § 58 0.0 3. I n s u c h c i r cu m st an ces W el ls Farg o's ser vi ce was th us va li d u nd er t he law. Id

.

The in te rm ed ia te co ur t's de ci si on in Ru iz do e s no t al te r ou r co nc lu si on

. A "d eci si on of an in te rm ed ia te st at e ap pe ll at e co ur t is no t bi nd in g on a fed eral co ur t th at

se ek s to de te rm in e st at e la w." Pl eas an ts v. Am

. Exp

. Co ., 54 1 F.3 d 85 3, 85 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). W e wil l on ly "fo ll ow th e de ci si on s of t h e s t a t e ' s in te rm ed ia te co ur ts whe n th ey are t he be st ev id en ce o f wha t t he st at e's la w is ." Swo pe v. Si eg el -Ro be rt, In c., 2 4 3 F .3d 48 6, 49 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ). W e are un pe rs ua de d th at Ru iz is "t he be st

ev id en ce" of M in ne so ta law o n t he pa rti cu la r is su e b efo re o ur co ur t. Id

.

The pa rti es in Ru iz di d no t rai se , an d th e Mi nn es ot a Co ur t of App eal s di d no t ad dr es s, th e le ga l arg um en t W el ls Farg o pr es en ts he re. W el ls Farg o' s p r e c i s e arg um en t is th at Mi nn

. St at

. § 58 0.0 32 do es no t pr ov id e rel ie f to ho m eo wne rs be cau se it was no t e n a c t e d f

o r th ei r be ne fit , an is su e no t ad dr es se d in Ru iz

. Mo reo ve r, th e Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t ha s "s tre ss [ed ] th at un pu bl is he d de ci si on s of th e co ur t of
ap pe al s ar e n ot pre ced en ti al ," an d Rui z was no t des ig na te d for pu bl ic at io n. Vl ah os v. R& I Co ns t. o f Bl oo m in gt on , Inc ., 67 6 N.W.2d 6 72 , 67 6 n .3 (M in n. 2 00 4)

.

W hi le th e Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t di d gr an t rev ie w in Ru iz , it was a li m it ed

rev ie w an d th e co ur t sp eci fic al ly de cl in ed to co ns i d e r t he pa rti es ' arg um en ts "re ga rd in g co m

pl ia nc e wit h th e no ti ce of pe nd en cy req ui r e men t i n Mi nn

. St at

. § 58 0.0 3 2 , s u b d

. 3." Ru iz v. 1s t Fi d. Loa n Serv ic in g, LLC, 82 9 N.W .2d 53 , 59 (Mi nn

. 20 13 ). The st at e s u p r em e co ur t in st ead affi rm ed on th e ba si s th at th e fo recl os i n g pa rty ha d no t co m pl ie d wit h al l fo ur "[r ]equ is it es fo r fo recl os ur e" by ad ve rti se m en t co n t a in ed in Mi nn

. St at

. § 58 0.0 2. It em ph as iz ed th at a fo recl os in g pa rty “ m us t st ric tl y co m

pl y wit h" th at st at ut e, id

. at 54 , bu t di d no t di sc us s th e effe ct of no nc om

pl ia nc e wit h an y ot he r st at e fo recl os ur e s t a t u te

. The re is no di sp ut e th at W el ls Farg o co m

pl ie d wit h th e fo ur req ui rem en ts of Mi nn

. St at

. § 58 0.0 2 in th e cas e

-7

-no w be fo re ou r co ur t, an d Ru iz is th eref or e no t in st ru ct iv e of th e Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t's vi ew on th e is su e b efo re u s.

III.

Si nc e Bad rawi 's cl ai m was pr op erl y di sm is se d un de r th e fact s of th is cas e an d th e Mi nn es ot a la w, we affi rm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

SMI TH, Circ ui t J ud ge , di ss en ti ng

.

I res pe ct fu ll y di ss en t fro m th e m ajor it y 's affi rm an ce of th e di st ric t co ur t's gr an t of W el ls Farg o's m ot io n t o d is m is s.

The m ajor it y res ol ve s th is cas e as th ou gh we sa t in th e pl ace of th e Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t. W e do no t. Our ta sk in th is di ve rs it y act io n is cl ear. "We m us t pr ed ic t ho w th e Su pr em e Co ur t of M i n n e s o t a wou ld ru le , an d we fo ll ow de ci si on s of th e in te rme di at e st at e co ur t whe n th ey are th e be st evi de nc e of Mi nn es ot a la w." Fri ed be rg v. Ch ub b & So n, In c. , 69 1 F.3 d 94 8, 95 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (em ph as es ad de d) ; W hi le an on -p oi nt Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t de ci si on wou ld b e c on tro ll in g pr eced en t, we are no t bo un d by th at St at e's in feri or co ur t de ci si on s. Non et he le ss , th e de ci si on s of th os e co ur ts can in de ed be he lp fu l in m ak in g th e be st pr ed ic ti on of wha t th e Mi nn es ot a Su pr e me Co ur t wou ld do

. Se e Gri nn el l Mut

. Rein su ra nc e Co

. v. Sc hw ie ge r , 68 5 F.3d 69 7, 70 3 n.5 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) ("'Al th ou gh fed eral co ur ts are no t bo un d to fo ll ow th e de ci si on s of in te rm ed ia te st at e co ur ts whe n in te rp ret in g st at e la w, st at e ap pe ll at e co ur t de ci si on s are hi gh ly pe rs ua si ve an d sh ou ld be f o l l o w e d whe n t h e y are th e be st ev id en ce of st at e la w.'" (q uo ti ng Bax te r In t'l

, In c. v. Mor ri s , 9 7 6 , F.2 d 1 1 8 9, 11 96 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ))). "Fu rth er, whi le un pu bl is he d de ci si on s 'are no t
pr eced en ti al ,' M in n. St at . § 48 0A.0 8, su bd . 3 (c), th ey 'can be o f p e r s u as iv e va lu e.'" Id

.

-8

-I n Rui z , th e Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t vo id ed a fo recl os ur e be cau se th e

m or tg ag ee di d no t st ric tl y co m pl y wit h Mi nn

. St at

. § 58 0.0 2 ( 3 ). "[B ]ecaus e [th e Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t] co nc lu de [d ] [in Rui z ] th at th e fo recl os ur e [was ] vo id fo r fai lu re to st ric tl y co m

pl y wit h Mi nn

. St at

. § 58 0.0 2( 3)

. . . , [it ] de cl in e[d ] to ad dr es s th e pa rti es ' ot he r arg um en ts , in cl ud in g th os e reg ard in g co m pl ia nc e wit h th e no ti ce of
pe nd en c y re qu ire m en t in Mi nn . S ta t. § 58 0.0 32 , s ub d. 3

. . . ." Rui z , 8 29 N.W .2d at 59

. The refo re, th e Mi nn es ot a Co ur t of App eal s's de ci si on in Rui z, whi ch di d ad dr es s § 58 0.0 32 , rem ai ns "t he be st ev id en ce of Mi nn es ot a la w" fo r th e cas e be fo re us

. Se e Fri ed be rg , 59 1 F.3 d at 95 1. In it s rev ie w of th e Rui z cas e, th e Mi nn es ot a Co ur t of App eal s co nc lu d e d th at "t he [Mi nn es ot a] [S]up rem e [C]ou rt cl earl y req ui res st ric t

co m pl ia nc e wit h th e fo recl os ur e-b y -ad ve rti se m en t st at ut es ." Rui z , 20 12 W L 76 23 13 , at *4

. The refo re, th e co ur t "re vi ewe[d ] [th e ba nk 's] fo recl os ur e by ad ve rti se m en t fo r st ric t co m pl ia nc e wit h th e rel ev an t st at ut or y r e q ui rem en ts ." Id . Ap pl y in g th e st ric tco m pl ia nc e st an da rd to th e cas e, th e co ur t con cl ud ed th at th e ba nk "fa il ed to sa ti sf y [Mi nn . S ta t. § 58 0.0 32 , s ub d. 3], b ecau se it reco rd e d t h e no ti ce of pe nd en cy on th e fir st da te of pu bl ic at io n," no t "'b efo re th e fir st da te of pu bl ic at io n of the fo recl os ur e

no ti ce.'" Id . ( qu ot in g Mi nn . S ta t. § 58 0.0 32 , s ub d. 3) . " Bec au se [th e ba nk ] fai le d to
st ric tl y co m

pl y wit h se ct io n 58 0.0 32 , su bd

. 3," th e c ou rt he ld th at "'t he fo recl os ur e pr oc eed in g [was ] vo i d .'" Id

. (q uo ti ng Ja cks on , 77 0 N.W .2d at 49 4)

. Bec au se th e ba nk 's "fo recl os ur e by ad ve rti se m en t [was ] vo id fo r fai lu re to st ric tl y co m pl y wit h

. . . [§ ] 5 80 .03 2," th e co ur t "re ve rs e[d ] th e di st ric t co ur t's su m m ary-j ud gm en t di sm is sa l o f [t he pl ai nt iff 's] cla im s u nd er th es e se ct io ns " an d " rem an d[ ed ] fo r en try of jud gm en t fo r [th e pl ai nt iff ] on th es e cl ai m s, as well as on he r qu ie t-t it le cl ai m ." Id

. at *5 ; se e al

so Sa ri v. W

el ls Far go Ban k, N

. A. , 2 01 2 W L 4 82 01 48 , a t *2 (D. Mi nn

. Oct. 10 , 20 12 ) (s li p co py) (ex pl ai ni ng th at al th ou gh "[t ]he Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t ha s no t ru le d di rect ly on th e qu es ti on of c o mp l i a n ce wit h Mi nn

. St at

. Sect io n 58 0.0 32 , su bd . 3 ," "t he la ng ua ge of th e st at ut e is cl ear" an d "t he st at e co ur ts wou ld
req ui re st ric t co m

pl ia nc e wit h th is st at e la w"). I be li ev e th at th e Mi nn es ot a Co ur t of App eal s de ci si on in Rui

z is ou r be st in di cat or of wha t th e Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t

wou ld do if i t h ad ch os en to ad dr es s § 58 0.0 32

.

-9

-Here, W el ls Farg o fai le d to st ric tl y co m pl y wit h § 58 0.0 32 , su bd

. 3. The refo re,

co ns i s t e n t wit h th e Mi nn es ot a Co ur t of App eal s's de ci si on in Rui z , I wou ld rev ers e

an d re m an d t o t he di st ric t co ur t fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 0-