Opinion ID: 222415
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: flma

Text: The FLMA stays foreclosure proceedings against qualified debtors to allow them an opportunity to mediate any dispute with their creditors. See Minn.Stat. § 583.26 subd. 5. For the statute to apply, Countrywide must be a creditor. § 583.24 subd. 1. Countrywide satisfies the FLMA definition if it is the holder of a mortgage on agricultural property. § 583.22 subd. 4. It is undisputed that Countrywide is the holder of the mortgage, and thus we must determine whether the Mayer's debt is a mortgage on agricultural property. As relevant here, agricultural property means real property that is principally used for farming, § 583.22 subd. 2, and farming means the production of (1) agricultural products; (2) livestock or livestock products; (3) milk or milk products; or (4) fruit or horticultural products, § 500.24 subd. 2. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Mayer, the record fails to create a genuine issue of material fact that the 6.21-acre parcel is principally used for farming, as defined in the FLMA. Mayer contends that the parcel is a farm homestead and that it is necessarily agricultural property for the purposes of storing equipment, tools, and materials necessary for farming. Appellant's Reply Br. at 5. Mayer cites to an appraiser's description of her pole shed, which Mayer argues is a typical 32 x 30 pole shed for purposes of storing farm equipment and tools, despite the lender's appraisers calling it a 2-car `detached garage' with a `dirt floor.' The homestead parcel, however, is not principally used for the production of agricultural products; it is a residence, and the pole shed comprises only 720 square feet of the 6.21-acre [4] parcel. We look only to the mortgaged property to determine whether Mayer's debt is a mortgage on agricultural property. § 583.22 subd. 4 (`Creditor' means the holder of a mortgage on agricultural property.. . .). Accordingly, the two adjacent parcels are not included in this inquiry. Mayer's showing that she farms small grains on part of the sixty-two acres, raises three to five head of cattle, and has had less than $20,000 in annual gross sales of agricultural products is thus insufficient to survive summary judgment because the record does not support the assertion that the encumbered homestead parcel is principally used for farming. [5] Cf. Rengstorf v. Richards, 417 N.W.2d 138, 140 (Minn.Ct. App.1987) (affirming conclusion that 133-acre parcel did not qualify for protection under the FLMA because [o]nly 25 acres were baled, and the value of that harvest was minimal and because the property's value as a residence exceed[ed] the value of its agricultural production). We are also not convinced that the encumbered parcel is the sort of property the FLMA was designed to protect. The purpose of the FLMA was to prevent the loss of [debtors'] farmland, equipment, crops, and livestock through mortgage and lien foreclosures by ensuring that farmers first had the opportunity to engage in mediation with their creditors. Minn.Stat. § 583.21. Foreclosure of the homestead parcel does not constitute a loss of farmland, equipment, crops, or livestock.