Court Opinion

ID: 9884850
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:17:31.158121+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:41.306288
License: Public Domain

LESLIE, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
After the property here in question was forfeited, appellant offered to purchase the property from the State. The legislature accepted his offer in the 1984 session. Appellant, acting in good faith tendered the price, but the tender was refused. I agree with appellant that what was created by the 1984 law was a contract for the sale of land. It is established that the State has the same right to sell land as an individual. State ex rel. Equity Farms, Inc. v. Hubbard, 203 Minn. 111, 280 N.W. 9 (1938). State officials may disagree with the wisdom of the legislation but they are obliged to abide by the law.
*476The attempted repeal of the 1984 law must fail since appellant complied with the legislature’s requirements and thus acquired a vested interest in the property. This interest cannot be disturbed by repeal. Yaeger v. Delano Granite Works, 250 Minn. 303, 84 N.W.2d 363 (1957). Rather than dismissing this case as moot I would reverse and require the State to convey back to him the property in issue.