Opinion ID: 2072744
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Contract for Sale

Text: Appellants both attack the validity of the trial court's finding that a contract of sale existed between themselves and the plaintiffs on four grounds. First, they contend the memorandum failed to satisfy the statute of frauds. Second, they argue the parties intended the formal contract for deed and not the memorandum to constitute the contract. Third, they argue the contract, if any, between Mr. Koob and the plaintiffs was void because it was not joined in by Mrs. Koob and thus constitutes an attempt to convey the homestead without the consent of the spouse in contravention of Minn.St. 507.02. [1] Finally, they argue the trial court erred in admitting the July 19 contract because of failure to pay the mortgage registration tax. Each will be treated in turn.