Title: Application of Berman
Citation: 247 N.W.2d 405
Docket Number: 46327
State: Minnesota
Issuer: Minnesota Supreme Court
Date: October 8, 1976

247 N.W.2d 405 (1976) In re Application of Nathan BERMAN to Register the Title to the Following Described Real Estate Situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota, Namely: LOT 14, BLOCK 11, "F. A. SAVAGE'S PORTLAND AVENUE ADDITION TO MINNEAPOLIS," applicant, Respondent, v. Barry F. KIEREN, et al., Defendants, David C. Krantz, et al., Appellants. No. 46327. Supreme Court of Minnesota. October 8, 1976. Howard S. Kleyman and Bruce W. Okney, Minneapolis, for appellants. Beugen &amp; Iverson, Robert J. Beugen and Steven H. Berndt, Minneapolis, for respondent. Heard before KELLY, YETKA and MARSDEN, JJ., and considered and decided by the court en banc. *406 KELLY, Justice. Defendants David C. Krantz and Conrad D. Krantz appeal from an order of the district court registering title to certain property in the name of the applicant, Nathan Berman. We affirm. This is an action to register title to real estate initially heard before a referee whose report recommending that title be registered in the name of the applicant was upheld by the district court. See, Rule 53, Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants Krantz do not contest in this court the factual findings of the referee, but only his conclusion that defendants had abandoned their interest under a contract for deed in the subject property. The referee found as follows: From these facts, the referee reached two conclusions regarding defendant's interest in the subject property: These findings and conclusions were adopted by the court. No one disputes conclusion No. 2, i. e., that defendants' contract for deed interest was not validly terminated pursuant to the procedure in Minn.St. 559.21. Defendants, however, take exception to conclusion No. 3, thereby raising the sole issue presented on appeal: Do the facts found by the referee justify his conclusion that defendants abandoned their interest in the subject property? While Minn.St. 559.21 specifies a procedure to be followed in terminating a buyer's interest under a contract for deed, failure to follow that procedure does not prevent termination because of the purchaser's abandonment of his interest in the subject property. Boulevard Plaza Corp. v. Campbell, 254 Minn. 123, 94 N.W.2d 273 (1959), and cases cited therein. Abandonment is defined as a voluntary relinquishment of an interest by the owner with the intent of terminating his ownership. A finding of abandonment depends upon the intentions of the parties and is not predicated on any single factor, but on all of the facts and circumstances concerning the owner's relationship with the subject property and the seller. The Melco Investment Co. v. Gapp, 259 Minn. 82, 105 N.W.2d 907 (1960); Rognrud v. Zubert, 282 Minn. 430, 165 N.W.2d 244 (1969). Mere failure to pay the purchase price or a short delay in payment or break in communication among the parties does not, absent other circumstances, justify a finding of abandonment. The Melco Investment Co. v. Gapp, supra; Rognrud v. Zubert, supra. In upholding findings of abandonment, this court has relied on a number of factors, including: (1) Failure to pay on the contract for a long period of time; (2) failure to take or retain possession of the property; (3) failure to pay real estate taxes; and (4) awareness of the seller's intent to terminate the contract for deed interest, coupled with failure to assert any right to the property. Ahlstrand v. McPherson, 285 Minn. 398, 173 N.W.2d 330 (1969); Stadelmann v. Boothroyd, 170 Minn. 430, 212 N.W. 908 (1927). See, also, Boulevard Plaza Corp. v. Campbell, supra. In contrast, no abandonment was found where the vendee failed to tender payment for 4 months, The Melco Investment Co. v. Gapp, supra; where there was a 2 ¾ month break in communication between the parties, Rognrud v. Zubert, supra; where the vendee proceeded diligently to enforce his rights under the contract, Buresh v. v. Mullen, 296 Minn. 150, 207 N.W.2d 279 (1973); and where the vendee remained in possession through an agent until the seller's repudiation, Tarpy v. Nowicki, 286 Minn. 257, 175 N.W.2d 443 (1970). In April 1974 applicant attempted to cancel the interests under the contract for deed executed by James Campion and the applicant *409 and his wife after no payments had been made in February, March, or April of that year. No payment or tender of payment has been made on the contract since January 1974. Defendants did not tender payment in their answer or at any time in this proceeding. Therefore, payment under the contract is now over 2 years in arrears and arrearage continues. Applicant found the premises abandoned and in a poor state of repair in July 1974. He made repairs and subsequently secured a tenant. Applicant paid the real estate taxes in 1974, and his tenants have been in possession since September 1974. Defendants were aware of the default under the contract as early as May 6, 1974, when one of their representatives (an employee of the corporation defendants had hired to manage their interest in the property) visited the property and contacted applicant. Attorneys for that corporation also contacted applicant in May and July of 1974, but no offers of payment were made nor were further negotiations concerning the property conducted. The property was vacant from June to September 1974, when applicant's tenants began occupancy. Defendants contend that another representative of the corporation visited the premises in June 1974, discovered that no one was in possession, and retained an individual to make repairs, but those repairs were never accomplished. Two visits and two telephone calls by alleged agents of defendants, without any attempt to negotiate or tender payment, take possession, actually make repairs or in any other way actively assert an interest in the property between the time those agents learned of the default in May and June and the commencement of this action in October 1974 are not sufficient to overcome the referee's conclusion of abandonment. Defendants' failure to actively assert their interest in the subject property, coupled with the long period of arrearage, adequately justifies a conclusion of abandonment. Affirmed.