author: ANDERSON, PAUL H., Justice. HANSON, Justice, PAGE, Justice MEYER, Justice

text:
    Richard ANTONE, Respondent, v. Israel MIRVISS, Appellant.
    No. A04-1367.
    Supreme Court of Minnesota.
    Aug. 17, 2006.

      Paul C. Peterson, William L. Davidson, Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for Appellant.
    Jeffrey A. Olson, PLLC, Julia A. O’Brien, Edina, MN, for Respondent.
    David F. Herr, Haley N. Schaffer, Mas-Ion Edelman Borman & Brand, LLP, Minneapolis, MN, for MN Lawyers Mutual Ins. Co. Amicus Curiae.
    Thomas J. Shroyer, Peter A. Roller, Moss & Barnett, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for MN Society of Certified Public Accountants Amicus Curiae.
    Mary C. Lauhead, St. Paul, MN, Michael Dittberner, Clugg, Linder & Dittber-ner & Edmiston, Ltd., Edina, MN, Donald L. Enockson, EI-Ghazzawy Law Offices, Minneapolis, MN, for Family Law Section, MSBA Amicus Curiae.
   OPINION

ANDERSON, PAUL H., Justice.

Richard Antone brought this legal malpractice action against his attorney, Israel Mirviss, alleging that Mirviss was negligent when he drafted an antenuptial agreement. Antone asserted that Mirviss failed to draft an agreement that protected his interest in any marital appreciation to his premarital property. The Hennepin County District Court dismissed Antone’s complaint under the six-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice actions, concluding that Antone’s cause of action accrued either when he signed the agreement and was married or when the premarital property thereafter appreciated, both of which events occurred more than six years before this action was commenced. The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Antone’s cause of action did not accrue until the district court awarded a portion of the marital appreciation of Antone’s premarital property to his wife in a marital dissolution proceeding, which event occurred less than six years before this action was commenced. We reverse the court of appeals.

In December 1986, respondent Richard Antone hired appellant Israel Mirviss as his attorney to draft an antenuptial agreement. He did so in anticipation of his marriage to Debra Schmidt. At that time, Antone owned several rental properties and he wanted to protect any appreciation in value of those properties from claims Schmidt could assert as his spouse. Antone alleges that he asked Mirviss to draft the antenuptial agreement to protect any appreciation from such claims by Schmidt. Schmidt at first refused to sign the agreement prepared by Mirviss, but changed her mind the next day after consulting with her own attorney and making some revisions to the agreement. Although the first draft of the agreement may have protected Antone’s interest in any marital appreciation to his premarital properties, the final draft did not. Antone alleges that Mirviss gave him only the signature page of the agreement and assured him that the agreement protected the marital appreciation of his premarital properties.

Antone and Schmidt were married on December 21, 1986. In 1998, Antone petitioned for dissolution of the marriage. He stated in a deposition that when he petitioned for dissolution of the marriage, he discovered for the first time that the ante-nuptial agreement failed to protect his interest in the marital appreciation of his premarital properties. He also said he would not have married Schmidt if Mirviss had provided him with this information.

On November 9, 2000, the district court in the dissolution proceeding found that, although Antone’s premarital properties appreciated in value during the marriage, the appreciation was attributable only to market forces, not marital efforts. Antone v. Antone, 645 N.W.2d 96, 99 (Minn.2002). As a result, the dissolution court awarded all of the marital appreciation to Antone as nonmarital property. Schmidt appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed. We then granted Schmidt’s petition for review and on June 13, 2002, we reversed, holding that the district court erred by not apportioning the marital appreciation between Antone and Schmidt. Id. at 102-03. On January 3, 2003, the district court issued an amended dissolution judgment awarding Schmidt a portion of the marital appreciation of Antone’s premarital property.

In September 2003, Antone commenced this legal malpractice action against Mir-viss for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract. As to damages, Antone alleges in his complaint that Schmidt received more money from the property award in the dissolution proceeding than she would have received “had the antenuptial agreement been drafted properly and as contemplated and explained to Antone by Mirviss.” Antone’s prayer for relief does not itemize damages.

Without specifying the procedural rule relied on, Mirviss filed a “motion to dismiss,” arguing that Antone’s claims were “barred by the 6 year [legal malpractice] statute of limitations set out in Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1.” In response, Antone filed a “memorandum of law opposing summary judgment.” (Emphasis added.) The district court treated Mirviss’s motion as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. upon which relief can be granted under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e). The court then granted the motion, concluding that Antone suffered damage, and thus the statute of limitations began to run, either (1) as soon as he was married because “[t]here was a risk of loss of part of the appreciation of [his] nonmarital property,” or (2) as soon as his nonmarital property increased in value because “at that point, [he] lost rights to a portion of that increase in value.”

A divided court of appeals reversed, holding that the requisite damages for accrual of Antone’s cause of action commenced when Antone “sustained the money damages that provide the object of his legal malpractice lawsuit.” Antone v. Mir-viss, 694 N.W.2d 564, 571 (Minn.App.2005). The court also said Antone’s loss was only “potential,” and that he had no actionable claim for malpractice “[u]ntil the contingencies of the appreciation in value, the dissolution, and the award of a portion of the appreciated value occurred.” Id. The dissent concluded that Antone was damaged when he married Schmidt because the antenuptial agreement immediately deprived him of an exclusive interest in his nonmarital assets. Id. at 572 (Dietzen, J., dissenting). We granted Mirviss’s petition for review.

I.

In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law. Wallin v. Letourneau, 534 N.W.2d 712, 715 (Minn.1995). There are no material facts at issue on this appeal. Thus we need only determine “whether the court erred in applying the law regarding the accrual of the cause of action and the running of the statute of limitations.” Weeks v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 580 N.W.2d 24, 26 (Minn. 1998). This is a question of law that we review de novo. Id.

The statute of limitations for legal malpractice is six years. Minn.Stat. § 541.05, subd. 1(5) (2004). The statute does not specify when the six-year period begins to run. We have consistently held that the statute begins to run when the cause of action accrues, that is, when the plaintiff can allege sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Dalton v. Dow Chemical Co., 280 Minn. 147, 152-53, 158 N.W.2d 580, 584 (1968). To state a claim for legal malpractice upon which relief can be granted, a plaintiff must allege “(1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship; (2) acts constituting negligence or breach of contract; (3) that such acts were the proximate cause of the plaintiffs damages; (4) that but for [attorney-jdefendant’s conduct the plaintiff would have been successful in the prosecution or defense of the action.” Blue Water Corp. v. O’Toole, 336 N.W.2d 279, 281 (Minn.1983). The only disputed element here is when damages accrued.

There are three types of accrual rules based on the damages element. The first rule is the traditional “occurrence” rule, which assumes that nominal damages occur, the cause of action accrues, and the statute of limitations begins to run, simultaneously with the performance of the negligent or wrongful act. See, e.g., Wilcox v. Executors of Plummer, 29 U.S. (4 Pet.) 172, 177, 7 L.Ed. 821 (1830); Greene v. Morgan, Theeler, Cogley & Petersen, 575 N.W.2d 457, 459 (S.D.1998). Under this rule, the statute of limitations begins to run as soon as the negligent act is committed even though there is no actual damage at that time. 575 N.W.2d at 459. Most jurisdictions have moved away from the occurrence rule. 3 Ronald E. Mallen & Jeffrey M. Smith, Legal Malpractice § 22.10, at 303 (2006) (stating that, by requiring suit before actual damage has occurred, the occurrence rule “encourages speculative litigation that can involve the client, the attorney and the courts in wasteful economic behavior”). We likewise have rejected the occurrence rule. Dalton, 280 Minn, at 154, 158 N.W.2d at 585 (“[I]t is not the wrongful, i.e., negligent act, which gives rise to the claim. For there must be damage caused by it.”) (quoting Brush Beryllium Co. v. Meckley, 284 F.2d 797, 800 (6th Cir.1960)).

At the other end of the spectrum is the “discovery” rule, under which the cause of action accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run only when the plaintiff knows or should know of the injury. See, e.g., Mumford v. Staton, Whaley & Price, 254 Md. 697, 255 A.2d 359, 365 (1969); Zimmie v. Calfee, Halter & Griswold, 43 Ohio St.3d 54, 538 N.E.2d 398, 401 (1989). Some legal commentators have noted that a significant disadvantage of the discovery rule is that it provides “open-ended liability.” Mallen & Smith, supra, § 22.15, at 420. We have also rejected the discovery rule. Dalton, 280 Minn, at 153, 158 N.W.2d at 584 (“Under our statutes it has been determined that ignorance of a cause of action not involving continuing negligence or trespass, or fraud on the part of the defendant, does not toll the accrual of a cause of action.”).

Minnesota has taken the middle ground by adopting the “damage” rule of accrual, under which the cause of action accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run when “ ‘some’ damage has occurred as a result of the alleged malpractice.” Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson, 590 N.W.2d 641, 643 (Minn. 1999); see also Dalton, 280 Minn, at 154, 158 N.W.2d at 585 (“Until there is some damage, there is no claim and certainly a statute prescribing the time in which suit must be filed * * * can never operate prior to the time a suit would be permitted.”) (quoting Brush Beryllium Co., 284 F.2d at 800). As noted in Mallen & Smith, “[t]he injustices and, frequently, illogical results from applying the occurrence rule have prompted most courts to add the requirement that there be actual injury before a cause of action accrues for purposes of a statute of limitations.” Mallen & Smith, supra, § 22.11, at 306. We continue to agree with the rationale supporting and the policies reflected by the “some damage” rule of accrual, and thus we reaffirm our prior case law adopting this rule.

II.

Mirviss focuses on this “some damage” rule and asserts that the court of appeals erred in focusing only on “the damage” for which Antone seeks recovery — the amount of the marital appreciation in Antone’s premarital property that was awarded to Schmidt. Mirviss argues that under the damage rule, Antone’s cause of action accrued and the statute of limitations began to run when any compensable damage occurred, even damage unrelated to the injury for which Antone ultimately seeks relief. Antone agrees that the standard is “some damage,” but asserts that this standard means the occurrence of “some damage supporting the relief sought.” He argues that because the relief he seeks is the portion of the marital appreciation of his premarital property that was awarded to Schmidt at the conclusion of their marriage dissolution proceeding, the statute of limitations did not accrue until the property award was actually made in 2003.

Our prior cases have not addressed the issue of what type of damages trigger accrual of the cause of action and the running of the statute of limitations. But our case law does support a broad interpretation of the concept of “some damage.” See, e.g., Noske v. Friedberg, 670 N.W.2d 740, 742 (Minn.2003) (“The showing a plaintiff must make in order to survive a motion to dismiss under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e) is minimal.”). Mallen & Smith also endorsed this broad interpretation when they said:

Where a greater injury remains uncertain, tolling is not appropriate if another injury is a consequence of the same alleged misconduct. An attempt to divide different damages resulting from one error into “separate” causes of action is illogical and antithetical to the purpose of a statute of limitations.

Mallen & Smith, supra, § 22.12, at 368. Accordingly, we conclude that the rule that is the most logical and consistent with our precedent is that a cause of action accrues, and the statute of limitations begins to run, on the occurrence of any compensable damage, whether specifically identified in the complaint or not.

III.

We now turn to the issue of whether Antone suffered any compensable damage more than six years before the commencement of this action. Here, our decision in Herrmann v. McMenomy & Severson, 590 N.W.2d 641 (Minn.1999), is instructive. In 1986, the defendant law firm in Herrmann prepared an employee benefit pension plan and trust for the plaintiff clients, but allegedly did not advise the clients that the tax laws prohibited them from engaging in certain transactions with the plan. Id. at 642. When the clients engaged in these transactions in 1987, they immediately became liable for significant excise taxes and interest. In 1993, the clients first discovered that the transactions were prohibited and began to address the problem. Id.

Three years later, in 1996 and shortly after the Internal Revenue Service notified the clients of their tax liability and interest, they commenced a legal malpractice action against the law firm. Id. at 642-43. The clients alleged that the law firm was negligent in failing to advise them that the transactions were prohibited. The law firm argued that the action was barred because the client was damaged in 1987, and thus the statute of limitations began to run more than six years before the commencement of the action. We held that some damage occurred in 1987 when the client became “immediately liable” for the tax because at that point the client could have commenced an action for legal malpractice that would have survived a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Id. at 643-44. •

In Antone v. Antone, 645 N.W.2d at 103, we held that the appreciation of Antone’s premarital property during his marriage was marital property. On remand the district court awarded Schmidt part of this appreciation. This appreciation is what Antone claims he paid Mirviss to protect and what Antone claims he lost because of Mirviss’s negligence. When Antone was single, his rental property appreciation belonged solely to him. As soon as Antone was married, in the absence of an effective antenuptial agreement, the appreciation was no longer protected from Schmidt’s claims and Antone lost the right to unilaterally change this consequence. See Minn. Stat. § 519.11, subds. la, 2a (2004) (requiring mutual consent to enter into a postnup-tial contract or amend an antenuptial contract). In other words, the consequence of Antone marrying Schmidt without having an effective antenuptial agreement in place was that he was left without the nonmari-tal property protections he sought to obtain through the antenuptial agreement drafted by Mirviss. For Antone, the consequences were both immediate and irremediable as of the date of the marriage.

When Antone entered his marriage with Schmidt, he passed a point of no return with respect to the laws of marital and nonmarital property and he did so without the legal shield he retained Mirviss to provide. See, e.g., Minn.Stat. § 518.58, subd. 1 (requiring the division of marital property upon a dissolution of a marriage). Each property-related step Antone took after the date of his marriage was, unbeknownst to him, unprotected. While this reality needs no additional amplification, it is supported by Antone’s own testimony that he would not have entered into the marriage if he had known the antenuptial agreement did not adequately protect his property interests. In essence, Mirviss’s representations caused Antone to do something he would not have otherwise done because, from the moment the marriage was entered into, Schmidt was legally entitled to make a claim upon a portion of any appreciation in his premarital property. We conclude that this exposure was an injury that resulted in some damage sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

The dissent argues that the seeds of some damage did not ripen until the dissolution of the marriage because Antone’s risk of losing some part of the mkrital appreciation of his premarital property was not fixed or certain when the marriage was entered into. But we have'held that the ability to ascertain the exact amount of damages is not dispositive with respect to the running of the statute of limitations. See generally Herrmann, 590 N.W.2d at 643 (stating that “[t]he running of the statute does not depend on the ability to ascertain the exact amount of damages.”) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the inability to calculate the precise damage at the time of marriage does not preclude the running of the statute of limitations from that point in time. At the time of his marriage, Antone lost the legal right to unfettered ownership in his premarital property. This loss was not a mere seed planted when Antone said “I do”; rather, it was a fully-matured briar patch.

The difficulties that would result from Antone’s proposed rule are illustrated by the different positions taken by the dissent and the court of appeals as to when Antone’s cause of action accrued. The court of appeals concluded that the cause of action accrued when Antone “sustained the money damages that provide the object of his legal malpractice lawsuit.” Mirviss, 694 N.W.2d at 571. The dissent concludes that the cause of action accrued either in 1998 when Antone incurred attorney fees defending against his liability or in 2000 when the first judgment and decree was issued awarding any appreciation in value solely to Antone. We conclude that such variations insert too much ambiguity into the law and in the end come very close to establishing a discovery rule which we previously rejected because it presented the potential for unintended, open-ended liability.

We conclude that Antone suffered some damage on December 21, 1986, when he and Schmidt entered into their marriage. Because December 21, 1986, was more than six years before the commencement of this action, the district court correctly determined that the statute of limitations bars Antone’s action and requires entry of summary judgmént in Mirviss’s favor. Therefore, we hold that the court of appeals erred when it concluded that Antone did not suffer damage until the award of a portion of the appreciated value to Schmidt. The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed.

DISSENT

HANSON, Justice,

(dissenting).

I agree with the majority’s conclusion that a cause of action for legal malpractice accrues, and the statute of limitations begins to run, on the occurrence of some compensable damage, even damage not specifically alleged in the complaint. But I disagree with the conclusion that Antone suffered some compensable damage when he married, more than six years prior to the commencement of this action. Instead, I would' follow Minnesota’s established rule that, where liability is contingent on a future event that is not certain to occur, no compensable damage occurs unless and until that future event occurs. Because any liability that Antone might have incurred to Schmidt by reason of their marriage was contingent, Antone could not have suffered any compensable damage until the contingency occurred; that is, when Antone,filed for marital dissolution and either (1) the antenuptial agreement became operative by the issuance of the decree of marital dissolution, or (2) Antone incurred expenses to defend against a potential liability that should have been prevented by the antenuptial agreement, whichever first occurred. Because there was no evidence that either event occurred more than six years prior to the commencement of this legal malpractice action, I would affirm the court of appeals decision that Antone’s claim is not barred by the statute of limitations.

I agree that our decision in Hermann v. McMenomy & Severson, 590 N.W.2d 641 (Minn.1999), is instructive, but I take completely different lessons from it than those extracted by the majority. In Herr-mann the facts presented four discrete events: (1) the negligent performance of legal services and the payment of legal fees for those services in 1986; (2) the creation of tax liability by engaging in prohibited transactions in 1987; (8) the expenditure of funds to attempt to remedy the problem in 1993; and (4) the IRS assessment of the tax liability in 1996. We did not regard the performance of legal services or the payment of legal fees for those services in 1986 as causing the malpractice claim to accrue, presumably because those acts would only be relevant to an occurrence rule, which we had already rejected. Instead, we held that “some damage” occurred in 1987 when the clients became “immediately liable” for the tax. Id. at 643-44. We concluded that at that time the clients could have commenced an action for attorney malpractice that would have survived a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Id. We did not separate the damages that the clients suffered in 1987 from that suffered in 1993 or 1996 or allow the claim to proceed for those later damages.

Accordingly, I take this general guidance from Herrmann: (1) because Minnesota does not follow the occurrence rule of accrual, the negligent performance of legal services and the essentially simultaneous payment of legal fees for those services are not sufficient for a cause of action to accrue; (2) the “some damage” rule of accrual looks to the first occurrence of any compensable damages sufficient to allow the plaintiff to survive a motion to dismiss; (3) the “some damage” rule does not focus only on the damages alleged in the complaint; and (4) to the extent that the client’s claim is for indemnity for a liability incurred by the client as a result of the attorney’s negligent advice or performance, some damage only occurs when that liability becomes “immediate,” which I take to mean fixed and certain.

These general principles lead me to reject the majority’s damage arguments. Also, I would reject the additional damage arguments made by Mirviss but not addressed by the majority. The majority concludes that Antone suffered some com-pensable damage on December 21, 1986, more than six years prior to the commencement of this action, when he and Schmidt married, because Antone “was no longer protected from Schmidt’s claims and Antone lost the right to unilaterally change this consequence.” Mirviss suggests that two other events that occurred more than six years prior to the commencement of this action caused some compensable damage: when Antone’s legal status changed from single to married when he married Schmidt in reliance on Mirviss’ representations; and Antone’s payment of legal fees to Mirviss.

1. Lost legal rights associated with marriage

It is true, as the majority asserts, that at the time Antone married, the antenup-tial agreement became effective, in the sense that Antone lost the right to unilaterally revoke it. But Antone’s loss of his right to revoke did not cause any actual damage because his risk of losing some part of the marital appreciation of his premarital property was not fixed or certain at that time. This is because the antenup-tial agreement would not become operative unless and until there was a dissolution of the marriage. Until then, Antone’s liability to Schmidt for a portion of the marital appreciation of Antone’s premarital property was contingent and it did not become fixed and certain until the decree of dissolution was entered. Thus, unlike Herr-mann, where the clients’ liability was immediately fixed by the completion of the prohibited transaction, Antone’s liability for a portion of the appreciation of his premarital property did not become immediately fixed on completion of his marriage, or even on the appreciation of the property. See id. at 642. Although the seeds of Antone’s liability were planted when the marriage occurred and the property appreciated, those seeds did not ripen into compensable damage until Antone’s liability became fixed by the dissolution of the marriage.

We have long recognized that where liability is contingent on the occurrence of an uncertain future event, the action is not sufficiently ripe to present a justifiable controversy and the statute of limitations does not accrue until the occurrence of that contingency. Bachertz v. Hayes-Lucas Lumber Co., 201 Minn. 171, 176, 275 N.W. 694, 697 (Minn.1937); accord Rayne State Bank & Trust, Co. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 483 So.2d 987, 995-96 (La. 1986); Poole v. Lowe, 615 A.2d 589, 593 (D.C.1992). Two modern cases from this court illustrate this point.

In Grothe v. Shaffer, 305 Minn. 17, 23-24, 232 N.W.2d 227, 232 (1975), this court held that a claim for contribution by a joint tortfeasor “does not accrue or mature until the person entitled to the contribution has sustained damage by paying more than his fair share of the joint obligation.” The resolution of the underlying tort action is a condition precedent to the transformation of a contingent liability to a fixed one. Without a fixed liability, there can be no damage that would trigger the commencement of the statute of limitations on a contribution claim by a joint tortfeasor. Id.

Similarly, in Oanes v. Allstate Ins. Co., 617 N.W.2d 401, 404 (Minn.2000), we were asked to determine when the statute of limitations commences against an insurer for recovery of underinsured motorist benefits. We previously held that an underin-sured motorist claim is -not ripe until the motorist’s contingent liability is fixed by the resolution in the underlying tort action against the motorist. Employers Mut. Cos. v. Nordstrom, 495 N.W.2d 855, 857 (Minn.1993). In Oanes we concluded that the injured motorist is not “damaged” for purposes of an underinsured motorist lawsuit until his liability is fixed in the underlying tort action. Oanes, 617 N.W.2d at 407.

The damages suffered by the plaintiffs in Oanes and Grothe were entirely contingent on the occurrence of uncertain events; the establishment of fixed liability by the resolution of the underlying tort actions. Oanes, 617 N.W.2d at 402-03, Grothe, 305 Minn, at 18-19, 232 N.W.2d at 229. Similarly, Antone’s liability to Schmidt for a part of the marital appreciation of his premarital property was entirely contingent on the dissolution of his marriage, an event that was not certain to occur. During the marriage the alleged defect in the ante-nuptial agreement did not give Schmidt any greater or different rights to a portion of the marital appreciation of Antone’s property than she would have had if the defect in the agreement did not exist. The key point is this: If Antone had sued Mirviss as soon as he was married or when the rental property appreciated in value, merely because he now risked losing a part of the marital appreciation in the event of a dissolution, the suit would not have survived a motion to dismiss because Antone’s liability would still be contingent and he would not yet have sustained any actual, compensable damage.

I recognize that the existence of some damage does not depend, under Herr-mann, on the ability to calculate the exact amount of damages. Herrmann, 590 N.W.2d at 643. But this principle has no application here because Antone’s liability did not become fixed until within six years from the commencement of the action. In other words, where liability is contingent, neither the fact of liability nor the amount of damage can be determined until the contingency occurs. It is the inability to determine the fact of liability, not the inability to determine the amount of damages that precludes the accrual of a cause of action under the some damage rule.

Mirviss relies on an unpublished court of appeals decision to support his view that Antone was damaged when the antenuptial agreement became irrevocable on his marriage. In Harmeyer v. Gustafson, the court of appeals held the cause of action for attorney malpractice accrued when the client signed an irrevocable trust agreement that he claimed was negligently drawn by his attorney. No. C8-00-1191, 2001 WL 122141 (Minn-App. Feb.5, 2001). But Harmeyer can be distinguished on two grounds. First, the trust was immediately funded and thus the client immediately lost an interest in the trust funds when they were made subject to the trust. Second, although the client’s future loss of the intended tax benefits from the trust was contingent, it was contingent only on his death. Thus, while Antone’s future loss was contingent on a marital dissolution that was not certain to occur, Harmeyer’s future loss was contingent on a death that was certain to occur.

2. Marriage in reliance

Mirviss argues that Antone suffered damage as soon as he was married because Antone acknowledged in his deposition that he would not have agreed to marry had he known that the martial appreciation of his premarital property was not protected. He argues that a marriage can constitute damages because as soon as Antone married he (1) lost “the legal right to claim an unfettered ownership interest in his non-marital assets;” (2) was subjected to a presumption that everything he gained thereafter became marital property, see Minn.Stat. § 518.54, subd. 5 (2004); (3) lost the right to convey his homestead without the signature of Schmidt, see MinmStat. § 507.02 (2004); and (4) became jointly and severally liable for certain household and family medical expenses, see Minn.Stat. § 519.05(a) (2004). Mirviss cites no authority to support the argument that the act of marriage can constitute damage.

Like the risk of losing the marital appreciation of Antone’s premarital properties, all of these potentially negative consequences of marriage were contingent on the occurrence of future events that were not certain to occur. The first two were contingent on a marital dissolution. The second two were contingent on Antone’s attempting unilaterally to convey his homestead or on Schmidt defaulting on household or family medical debts during the marriage, neither of which was shown to have occurred.

Further, to conclude that the disadvantages of marriage outweigh the benefits so as to cause compensable damages would run contrary to public policy. It would also inject subjectivity into Minnesota’s otherwise objective damage approach to accrual, presenting fact questions on reliance and causation. It would require speculation about whether the alleged defect in the agreement was sufficiently material, given a particular plaintiffs pre and post-marriage financial situations, to support the subjective claim that the client would not have married. I do not find this to be an appropriate basis for applying the statute of limitations.

3. Payment of attorneys fees to Mir-viss

Finally, Mirviss argues that Antone suffered some damage as soon as he paid Mirviss’ fees for preparing an antenuptial agreement. It is not clear in our law whether a client in an attorney malpractice action can state a claim for a refund of attorney fees paid. I note that one legal malpractice treatise, in listing direct and consequential damages recoverable in an attorney malpractice action, does not include recovery of the fees paid to the defendant attorney. 3 Ronald E. Mallen & Jeffrey M. Smith, Legal Malpractice, § 20.1-20.16, at 1-56 (2006). More typically, the fees of the malpractice defendant are viewed as an offset to the other damages for which the professional may be liable. See, e.g., id. § 20.18 at 56-61; Moores v. Greenberg, 834 F.2d 1105 (1st Cir.1987); Saffer v. Willoughby, 143 N.J. 256, 670 A.2d 527 (1996). In other words, an attorney may be able to recover fees even though there was some malpractice. This would suggest that the client would not be able to seek a refund of the fees as a compensable damage in the malpractice action.

In Minnesota, we have approached this issue under the concept of forfeiture. Thus, in Perl v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Go., we observed that generally an attorney does not forfeit his or her right to compensation for mere negligence, but only for a breach of a fiduciary duty. 345 N.W.2d 209, 212 (Minn.1984). And, as to forfeiture for breach of a fiduciary duty, we recognized that it was not dependent on any actual loss to the client, but was awarded as “nominal damages” because the client was “deemed injured” as a result of the breach of fiduciary duty. Id. Here, Antone only alleges negligence, not breach of fiduciary duty.

Of course, Mirviss’ argument also presents causation issues because Mirviss’ alleged malpractice did not cause Antone to pay his legal fees. And, as noted earlier, we find support in Herrmann for the conclusion that the payment of attorney fees for the services that are claimed to be defective does not trigger the accrual of the malpractice cause of action. 590 N.W.2d at 643^44. In Herrmann, the legal services were performed, and the professional fees were presumably paid, in 1986, but the client did not engage in a prohibited transaction, and thus did not incur liability as a result of the attorney’s negligent advice, until 1987. 590 N.W.2d at 642. We determined that the cause of action did not accrue until 1987, when the client incurred a fixed and certain liability as a result of the attorney’s advice. Id.

Finally, I note that any holding that the action accrues on the payment of Mirviss’ attorney fees would conflict with the public policy considerations that underlie our rejection of the historic occurrence rule. Many other jurisdictions have also moved away from the occurrence rule because it was unreasonably harsh to clients and did not serve the interests of judicial economy.

The -occurrence rule was harsh to clients because it often would force the client to commence an action for an insignificant part of his potential loss, and then face the prospect that he may be precluded by res judicata from later pursuing a claim for the significant loss. As applied to the facts here, the occurrence rale would have required Antone to sue Mirviss for about $1,400 before December 22, 1992, (within 6 years from the date the antenuptial agreement was drawn and fees were paid), while he was still married, and any judgment for those fees may have precluded Antone from later suing Mirviss for the litigation costs incurred after 1998 or for indemnification of his liability for a portion of the marital appreciation of his premarital property, which only became fixed and certain when the marriage was dissolved in 2000.

The occurrence rule also did not serve the interests of judicial economy because it required a client to sue while he is still married, bringing unhelpful stress to the marriage, and before the potentially significant damage has occurred. Because the payment of attorney fees for legal services is generally simultaneous with the performance of the services, the conclusion that the cause of action accrued on the payment of those fees would effectively reinstate the occurrence rule of accrual for attorney malpractice claims. I would reject that conclusion for the same reasons that we rejected the occurrence rule of accrual.

Because Antone’s legal malpractice action was commenced within six years of the filing of the dissolution proceeding, it is not necessary to precisely determine whether Antone’s cause of action accrued in 1998, when he incurred attorney fees to defend against his liability for the marital appreciation of his premarital property, or in 2000, when the decree of dissolution was entered. In either case, Antone’s legal malpractice action was commenced before the limitations period expired. Accordingly, I would affirm the result reached by the court of appeals and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings.

PAGE, Justice

(dissenting).

I join in the dissent of Justice Hanson.

MEYER, Justice

(dissenting).

I join in the dissent of Justice Hanson.

      . Article five of the first draft provided: "Each of them waives any claim to any part of or interest in the non-marital property owned by the other and in the marital property hereafter acquired by the other * *
      The final draft, as signed by the parties, omitted article five and did not otherwise address the division of property on dissolution.

      . Antone does not allege fraud and does not argue for the tolling of the statute of limitations.

      . The district court recognized that this second alternative would bar recovery only if the property value increased before August 31, 1997, six years and one day before service of the complaint. But the court reasoned that the dissolution court made findings that the value increased during the marriage and, although it did not specify when the increases took effect, "it is logical that some of [the property] increased in value during this almost eleven year period.”

      . Antone argues that because the district court treated Mirviss's motion as a Rule 12 motion to dismiss, we are limited to the facts in the pleadings and cannot rely on the depositions and other documents. But Rule 12 provides that if "matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02. Because both Mirviss and Antone presented affidavits in support of their positions and the district court did not exclude them, we agree with the court of appeals that Mirviss's motion should be treated as a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56.

      . Every factually similar foreign case involving allegations of the negligent preparation of an antenuptial agreement can be distinguished from this case on the basis of these differences in accrual rules. See, e.g., Robbat v. Gordon, 771 So.2d 631 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 2000) (discovery rule jurisdiction); Zimmie v. Calfee, Halter & Griswold, 43 Ohio St.3d 54, 538 N.E.2d 398 (1989) (discovery rule jurisdiction); Greene v. Morgan, Theeler, Cogley & Petersen, 575 N.W.2d 457 (S.D.1998) (occurrence rule jurisdiction).

      . Other jurisdictions that follow the "some damage” rule of accrual generally agree that a cause of action accrues upon the occurrence of any compensable damage, not just the damage for which relief is sought. E.g., Serra Chevrolet, Inc. v. Edwards Chevrolet, Inc., 850 So.2d 259, 271 (Ala.2002); Jordache Enter., Inc. v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, 18 Cal.4th 739, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 749, 958 P.2d 1062, 1065 (1998); Figueroa v. Merrick, 128 Idaho 840, 919 P.2d 1041, 1043 (Ct.App. 1996); Jason v. Brown, 637 So.2d 749, 751 (La. Ct.App. 1994).

      . Similarly, the cases from other jurisdictions that apply a damage accrual rule similar to Minnesota’s do not generally hold that the cause of action for attorney malpractice accrues on the payment of attorney fees for the allegedly defective legal services. See, e.g., Rayne State Bank & Trust Co. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 483 So.2d 987, 996-97 (La. 1986) (holding statute of limitations began to run in 1981, when client initiated foreclosure proceedings on fatally defective mortgages; not in 1979, when mortgages were drafted and attorney fees presumably paid).

      . We have held that "a plaintiff may not split his cause of action and bring successive suits involving the same set of factual circumstances.” Hauser v. Mealey, 263 N.W.2d 803, 807 (Minn.1978). A claim or cause of action is "[a] group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for suing.” Martin ex rel. Hoff v. City of Rochester, 642 N.W.2d 1, 9 (Minn.2002). Where the same evidence will sustain both actions, the former judgment is a bar to subsequent action. McMenomy v. Ryden, 276 Minn. 55, 58, 148 N.W.2d 804, 807 (1967). But see Care Institute, Inc.-Roseville v. County of Ramsey, 612 N.W.2d 443, 447 (Minn.2000) (holding that claims cannot be considered the same cause of action if “the right to assert the second claim did not arise at the same time as the right to assert the first claim”).

      . Antone incurred legal expenses in the dissolution proceeding defending against Schmidt’s claims to a part of the marital appreciation of his premarital property. But for Mirviss’ alleged negligence, Schmidt would not have had legal grounds to make those claims and Antone would not have incurred these expenses. Therefore, Antone suffered damages as soon as he paid legal fees to defend against an action caused by Mirviss' alleged negligence. Consistent with our holding that a cause- of action accrues upon the occurrence of any compensable damages, the statute of limitations began at the latest when Antone incurred these legal expenses. See Hill v. Okay Constr. Co., 312 Minn. 324, 347, 252 N.W.2d 107, 121 (Minn.1977) (attorney fees are recoverable “when the attorneys fees and expenses claimed are incurred in other litigation which is necessitated by the act of the party sought to be charged”); Sirott v. Lotts, 6 Cal.App.4th 923, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 206, 209 (1992) ("A client suffers damage when he is compelled, as a result of the attorney’s error, to incur or pay attorney fees.”); Lucey v. Law Offices of Pretzel & Stouffer, Chartered, 301 Ill.App.3d 349, 234 Ill.Dec. 612, 703 N.E.2d 473, 478 (1998) (same); Larson v. Norkot Mfg., Inc., 653 N.W.2d 33, 36 (N.D. 2002) (same).

      .The antenuptial agreement became operative when the decree of dissolution was entered in 2000. Although issues concerning property division were appealed, the dissolution of the marriage was not appealed and became final in 2000. Thus, the legal basis for Antone’s liability under the antenuptial agreement became fixed and certain in 2000, even though it was not judicially determined and the amount was not awarded until 2003.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: KALITOWSKI, Judge.

license: Public Domain

text:
    TCM PROPERTIES, LLC, Respondent, v. Lawrence P. GUNDERSON, et al., Appellants, and Timothy J. Menne, Appellant, v. TCM Properties, LLC, et al., Respondents.
    No. A05-1979.
    Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
    July 18, 2006.

      Clark A. Joslin, Clark A. Joslin Law Offices, P.A., Cambridge, MN, for respondent.

      John C. Povejsil, Forest Lake, MN; and Craig J. Beuning, Yadnais Heights, MN, for appellants.
    Considered and decided by HUDSON, Presiding Judge; KALITOWSKI, Judge; and WORKE, Judge.
   OPINION

KALITOWSKI, Judge.

On appeal in this mortgage-redemption dispute, appellant-mortgagors Lawrence and Kathryn Gunderson and appellant-mortgagee Timothy Menne argue that (1) Minn.Stat. § 58.13 (2004) does not create a private cause of action; (2) the district court erred by concluding that their mortgage transaction violated Minn.Stat. § 58.13, subd. 1(13); and (3) Menne complied with the statutory redemption requirements.

FACTS

Appellants Lawrence and Kathryn Gun-derson (Gundersons) were fee owners of their homestead in Chisago County, Minnesota. They defaulted on the mortgage on the property and the property was sold at a sheriffs sale. Respondent TCM is a real-estate investment company that acquired an interest in the Gundersons’ property when it purchased a judgment against Lawrence Gunderson.

As the Gundersons’ redemption period neared its end, their attorney asked appellant Timothy Menne (Menne) to help the Gundersons protect the equity in their home by taking liens on their home and redeeming them after the Gundersons’ redemption period expired. Menne, who is the Gundersons’ friend and had lent them approximately $3,000 over the previous three years, agreed. On April 21, 2005, the last day of their redemption period, the Gundersons executed and delivered five $100 mortgages to Menne. See Minn. Stat. § 580.23, subd. 1 (2004).

According to the testimony of Menne, Kathryn Gunderson, and the attorney who structured the transaction, they executed the mortgages for two purposes. The first purpose was to extend the statutory redemption period to allow time to sell the home and pay off the Gundersons’ debts with the proceeds. The second purpose was to secure the $3,000 debt. Kathryn Gunderson testified that the Gundersons intended to repay Menne. And Menne testified that he expected to be repaid with the proceeds of the sale of the home.

Menne, through his attorney, recorded the five mortgages and notices of intent to redeem on April 21, 2005. The attorney testified that he then filed the mortgages and notices with the sheriffs department. Minutes after Menne recorded his mortgages, TCM recorded its judgment against the property. TCM then delivered the necessary redemption documents to the sheriffs office.

The clerk at the sheriffs office concluded that because the mortgages were not in the file, Menne’s attorney did not file them with the notices of intent to redeem. She also testified that shortly after Menne filed his documents, a TCM representative came to the sheriffs office and looked at the file. The clerk did not remember if the file left her sight while the TCM representative was reviewing it. Finally, the clerk explained that the sheriffs office does not have a recording mechanism to keep track of what the department receives and when it receives it.

On April 22, 2005, TCM made full payment of the funds necessary to redeem as a junior creditor. Accordingly, the sheriffs office issued TCM a certificate of redemption. TCM filed an eviction action against the Gundersons, and Menne commenced an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, seeking a declaration that Menne was the sole party entitled to redeem as a junior creditor. After hearing testimony concerning both matters, the district court held that Menne was entitled to redeem, and it denied TCM’s request for eviction of the Gundersons until Men-ne’s right to redeem expired.

TCM filed a motion to amend the findings or for a new trial. TCM argued that Menne should be denied equitable relief because he violated Minn.Stat. § 58.13, subd. 1(13) (2004), and that Menne had not strictly complied with the redemption procedure.

The district court issued amended findings and conclusions of law, completely reversing its previous order. In its amended order, the court more closely examined Minn.Stat. § 58.13, subd. 1(13), and found that its restrictions applied to Menne. The court acknowledged that although this court’s opinion in First Nat’l Bank of Glencoe/Minnetonka v. Pletsch, 543 N.W.2d 706 (Minn.App.1996), review denied (Minn. Apr. 16, 1996), supported the mortgage transaction, Minn.Stat. § 58.13, subd. 1(13), overruled Pletsch. Furthermore, because the transactions between the Gundersons and Menne violated Minn.Stat. § 58.13, subd. 1(13), the court found that they were precluded from seeking equitable relief because they entered the proceedings with unclean hands. And finally, the court concluded that it was “uncertain” whether Menne complied with the procedural redemption requirements found in Minn.Stat. § 580.24 (2004).

ISSUES

1.Was TCM precluded from asserting that Menne violated Minn.Stat. § 58.13, subd. 1(13) (2004), because it failed to bring a claim pursuant to Minnesota’s private-attorney-general statute?

2. Did the district court abuse its discretion by holding that Menne was barred from asserting his declaratory-judgment claim because he violated Minn.Stat. § 58.13, subd. 1(13)?

3. Did Menne comply with the statutory requirements for redemption?

ANALYSIS

I.

Appellants contend that TCM was barred from pursuing a violation of Minn. Stat. § 58.13, subd. 1(13) (2004), because TCM did not bring its claim pursuant to the private-attorney-general statute, Minn. Stat. § 8.31, sübd. 3a (2004), and because TCM’s claim did not benefit the public. We disagree.

Recently, this court addressed the issue of whether claims alleging violations of Minn.Stat. § 58.13 must be brought pursuant to the private-attorney-general statute. Timeline, LLC v. Williams Holdings # 3, 698 N.W.2d 181, 189 (Minn.App.2005), review denied (Minn. Aug. 24, 2005). In Timeline, the appellant argued that the mortgage underlying a creditor’s redemption violated Minn.Stat. § 58.13, subd. 1(13). 698 N.W.2d at 189. The district court held, and this court agreed, that a violation of Minn.Stat. § 58.13 (2002) must be alleged pursuant to the private-attorney-general statute, Minn.Stat. ,§ 8.31, subd. 3a. Id. After noting that Minn.Stat. § 8.31, subd. 3a, applies only to claimants who demonstrate that their cause of action benefits the public, this court concluded that the appellant was barred from pursuing its claim because the transaction at issue was a private one. Id. (quoting Ly v. Nystrom, 615 N.W.2d 302, 314 (Minn. 2000)).

Here, unlike the appellant in Timeline, TCM did not assert a claim seeking to enforce Minn.Stat. §• 58.13. Instead, TCM argued that Minn.Stat. § 58.13, subd. 1(13), provided grounds for denying Men-ne’s request for equitable relief. Because TCM did not seek private enforcement of Minn.Stat. § 58.13, subd. 1(13), and because, as discussed below, we hold that Menne did not violate the statute, we conclude that TCM’s argument was not precluded by its failure to establish a claim pursuant to the private-attorney-general statute.

II.

Appellants argue that the district court erred when it held that Menne was barred from seeking equitable relief because the mortgage underlying Menne’s attempted redemption violated Minn.Stat. § 58.13, subd. 1(13). We agree.

Granting equitable relief is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Nadeau v. County of Ramsey, 277 N.W.2d 520, 524 (Minn.1979). “Only a clear abuse of that discretion will result in reversal.” Id. But application of a statute to the undisputed facts of a case involves a question of law, and the district court’s decision is not binding on this court. O’Malley v. Ulland Bros., 549 N.W.2d 889, 892 (Minn. 1996).

The district court held that because Menne violated Minn.Stat. § 58.13, subd. 1(13), when he entered into the mortgage transaction with the Gundersons, he was precluded from seeking equitable relief because he entered the proceedings with unclean hands. The court also stated that the subsequent enactment of the statute overturned the redemption practice that this court approved in First Nat’l Bank of Glencoe/Minnetonka v. Pletsch, 543 N.W:2d 706 (Minn.App.1996), review denied (Minn. Apr. 16,1996).

In Pletsch, the appellant bank foreclosed two mortgages that it held on the respondents’ home. 543 N.W.2d at 707-08. Anticipating the end of their redemption period, respondents found a benefactor “willing to take a lien on the property and to redeem the property as a junior lien-holder and then lease the property back to [respondents] with an option to repurchase.” Id. at 708. The benefactor lent the homeowners $100 in exchange for a mortgage and filed a notice of intent to redeem. Id. at 708 & n. 2. The benefactor’s redemption extinguished the bank’s second mortgage as an intervening, unredeemed lien. Id. at 708. On appeal, this court rejected the bank’s suggestion that respondents acted fraudulently, stating that “respondents’ transaction ... was not a ‘sham’ but a lawful means for satisfying the mortgage demands on the pertinent property while extending the [homeowner’s] opportunity for successful redemption.” Id. at 710.

As a preliminary matter, Pletsch generally supports the validity of Menne’s benefactor-mortgage here. In both cases, a benefactor-mortgagee accepted a mortgage at the end of a homeowner’s redemption period in order to redeem the mortgage and help the homeowner retain control over the property by extending the redemption period.

Two years after this court decided Pletsch, the Minnesota legislature enacted the “Minnesota Residential Mortgage Originator and Servicer Licensing Act” (Act) to regulate the residential mortgage origination and servicing industry. See Minn.Stat. §§ 58.01-58.17 (2004). The provision governing standards of conduct states:

No person acting as a residential mortgage originator or servicer, including a person required to be licensed under this chapter, and no person exempt from the licensing requirements of this chapter under section 58.04, shall:
(13) make or assist in making any residential mortgage loan with the intent that the loan will not be repaid and that the residential mortgage originator will obtain title to the property through foreclosure.

Minn.Stat. § 58.13, subd. 1(13). The Act defines a “residential mortgage originator” as

a person who, directly or indirectly, for compensation or gain or in expectation of compensation or gain, solicits or offers to solicit, or accepts or offers to accept an application for a residential mortgage loan through any medium or mode of communication from a borrower, or makes a residential mortgage loan.

Minn.Stat. § 58.02, subd. 19 (2004).

Here, the district court hinged its denial of equitable relief on its finding that Men-ne violated the Act. Thus, we first address whether the loan Menne issued to the Gundersons fell under the conduct prohibited in Minn.Stat. § 58.13, subd. 1(13).

If the language in a statute is clear, we will rely on its plain meaning. Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2004); Correll v. Distinctive Dental Servs., P.A., 607 N.W.2d 440, 445 (Minn.2000). The plain language of the statute prohibits a residential mortgage originator from making a residential mortgage loan if the originator intends (1) that the loan will not be repaid, and (2) that the originator will obtain title to the property through foreclosure. Applying the' general conjunctive meaning of the word “and,” the transaction is not prohibited unless both elements are present. See Minn.Stat. § 645.08(1) (2004) (stating that words are “construed according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage”).

We conclude that the record here does not indicate that Menne made the loans ■with the intent that they would not be repaid. Menne testified that he expected to be repaid. Kathryn Gunderson testified that she intended to repay Menne. And the attorney who facilitated the transaction stated three times during his testimony that the debts were intended to be repaid. We reject TCM’s claim that the lack of correlation between the amount of the debt and the amount of the mortgages necessarily proved that Menne did not intend for the loans to be repaid.

Furthermore, there is no indication that Menne intended to obtain title to the Gun-dersons’ property through foreclosure. Although the record does not explicitly detail the process by which Menne planned to help the Gundersons sell the home after he redeemed, the record is devoid of any evidence that Menne intended to obtain title to the Gundersons’ home by foreclosing on it.

We also address the district court’s suggestion that the legislature overturned the benefactor-mortgage technique approved in Pletsch by passing Minn.Stat. § 58.13, subd. 1(13). The district court acknowledged that it was “unclear” whether the legislature intended to bar the practice approved in Pletsch, but nonetheless found that application of the statute precluded such benefactor mortgages.

First, the practical application of the statute does not nullify the practice approved in Pletsch because, as was the case with Menne here, there was no indication in Pletsch that the lender did not intend to be repaid. See Pletsch, 543 N.W.2d at 708-09. Second, to the extent an ambiguity exists regarding the legislature’s intent in enacting Minn.Stat. § 58.13, subd. 1(13), the legislative history of the provision indicates that its purpose was to prevent predatory lenders from seeking out consumers in distress and offering those consumers services for which they lack the ability to pay. Hearing on S.P. No. 2966 Before the Senate Comm, on Commerce (Feb. 13, 1998). Significantly, the lenders here and in Pletsch did not solicit them services to financially unstable homeowners. Pletsch, 543 N.W.2d at 708. Rather, the homeowners solicited the benefactor-lenders’ assistance. Id. And the homeowners sided with the benefactor-lenders at trial. Id. at 708-09. Therefore, to the extent Pletsch permits benefactor mortgages, we conclude that Minn.Stat. § 58.13, subd. 1(13), did not overturn Pletsch.

Moreover, by its plain language, Minn. Stat. § 58.13, subd. 1(13), does not prohibit a mortgage transaction unless the lender intends that the loan will not be repaid and that it will obtain title to the property through foreclosure. And we conclude that the mortgage at issue here does not satisfy either prong. Our conclusion is supported by the statute’s legislative history, which indicates that the purpose of the statute was to curb predatory lending practices rather than to prohibit benefactor mortgages.

Because Menne’s loans to the Gun-dersons did not violate the statute, the purported statutory violation cannot serve as the basis for denying Menne’s claim for equitable relief under the doctrine of unclean hands. The equitable defense of unclean hands is premised on withholding judicial assistance from a party guilty of illegal or unconscionable conduct. Fred O. Watson Co. v. U.S. Life Ins. Co., 258 N.W.2d 776, 778 (Minn.1977). Because appellants’ mortgage transaction did not violate Minn.Stat. § 58.13, subd. 1(13), and because the district court cited no alternative rationale for finding Menne’s conduct illegal or unconscionable, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion by denying Menne’s request for equitable relief.

III.

TCM argues that Menne failed to comply with the recent amendments to the statute governing creditor redemption. Menne and the Gundersons argue that Menne substantially complied with the statute. Application of a statute to the undisputed facts of a case involves a question of law, and the district court’s decision is not binding on this court. O’Malley, 549 N.W.2d at 892.

The validity of a redemption depends on whether the party redeeming has substantially complied with the statutory redemption procedures. Sieve v. Rosar, 613 N.W.2d 789, 793 (Minn.App.2000). To promote certainty in real-estate transactions, redemption statutes are interpreted strictly according to their terms. In re Brainerd Nat’l Bank, 383 N.W.2d 284, 289 (Minn.1986). But strict construction does not preclude redemption when formal defects do not prejudice the rights of junior lienors. Sieve, 613 N.W.2d at 793. “While the essential elements of the statute must be strictly adhered to, failure to comply with the more formal requirements may be overlooked.” Id.

In 2004, the legislature substantially amended the statute governing creditor redemption, Minn.Stat. § 580.24, to include more detailed redemption procedures. 2004 Minn. Laws ch. 234, § 4, at 724-25. Under the revised statute, a creditor may not redeem unless the creditor:

(1) records with each county recorder and registrar of titles where the foreclosed mortgage is recorded a notice of the creditor’s intention to redeem;
(2) records in each office where the notice is recorded all documents necessary to create the lien on the mortgaged premises and to evidence the creditor’s ownership of the lien; and
(3) after complying with clauses (1) and (2), delivers to the sheriff who conducted the foreclosure sale or the sheriffs successor in office' a copy of each of the documents required to be recorded under clauses (1) and (2), with the office, date and time of filing for record stated on the first page of each document.

Minn.Stat. § 580.24(a) (Supp.2005). Because filing the mortgage document is now an express requirement under the statute, it is an essential element to which creditors must “strictly adhere” in order to successfully redeem. Sieve, 613 N.W.2d at 793; cf. Timeline, 698 N.W.2d at 186-89 (holding that redeeming party substantially complied despite formal defects of failure to file documentation, which the statute did not specifically require, establishing corporate name change and attorney-in-fact status).

Here, the district court heard conflicting testimony regarding whether Men-ne filed the mortgages with the sheriffs office. Menne’s attorney testified that he filed the mortgages on April 21, 2005. But the sheriffs clerk concluded that because the mortgages were not in the file, Men-ne’s attorney must not have filed them. The district court noted that the lack of a systematic recording system in the sheriffs office and the break in the chain of custody of the sheriffs foreclosure file made it difficult to determine whether Menne filed the mortgages.

Rather than resolving the issue by making a credibility determination, the district court concluded that it was “uncertain” whether Menne complied with Minn.Stat. § 580.24 and declined to reopen the record in light of its ruling on Menne’s violation of Minn.Stat. § 58.13, subd. 1(13). Because we conclude that Menne did not violate Minn.Stat. § 58.13, subd. 1(13), a determination of whether Menne strictly complied with the redemption requirements by filing the mortgages with the sheriffs office as required by Minn.Stat. § 580.24(a)(3) is necessary. We therefore remand this issue to the district court for consideration in such proceedings as the district court deems appropriate.

DECISION

The district court was not precluded from considering the application of Minn. Stat. § 58.13 as a result of TCM’s failure to bring a claim pursuant to Minnesota’s private-attorney general statute.

Minn.Stat. § 58.13, subd. 1(13), does not prohibit a benefactor from taking a lien on a homeowner’s property during the homeowner’s redemption period with the twofold purpose of redeeming the lien to enlarge the redemption period, thereby providing time for the home to be sold, and of securing the debt that the benefactor expects will be repaid from proceeds of the sale.

Because the district court did not determine whether Menne complied with the redemption requirements of Minn.Stat. § 580.24, we remand the issue to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

      . The amendments were effective January 1, 2005, and applied to "foreclosures where the mortgagor’s period of redemption expires on or after the effective date.” 2004 Minn. Laws ch. 234, § 6, 726. Because the Gundersons’ period of redemption expired after January 1, 2005, the amended version of the statute applies here.


author: HUDSON, Judge.

text:
    REAL ESTATE EQUITY STRATEGIES, LLC, Respondent, v. Michael E. JONES, et al., Appellants.
    No. A05-2083.
    Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
    Aug. 8, 2006.

      Jack E. Pierce, Tracy Halliday, Pierce Law Firm, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for respondent.
    Kristine K. Nogosek, Robert B. Bauer, Severson, Sheldon, Dougherty & Molenda, P.A., Apple Valley, MN, for appellants.
    Leah K. Weaver, Mid-Minnesota Legal Assistance, Minneapolis, MN; and David P. Graham, Michael L. Dolan, Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLP, Minneapolis, MN, for amicus curiae Mid-Minnesota Legal Assistance.
    Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Julie Yuki Ralston Aoki, Martin Carlson, Assistant Attorneys General, St. Paul, MN, for amicus curiae State of Minnesota.
    Considered and decided by HUDSON, Presiding Judge; KALITOWSKI, Judge; and WORKE, Judge.
   OPINION

HUDSON, Judge.

When the mortgage on the home of Michael and Edith Jones (owners) went into foreclosure, they entered an agreement with Real Estate Equity Strategies (REES) and related entities under which owners purportedly sold their home to a REES-related entity and leased it back with an option to purchase. Owners later defaulted on the lease and REES filed an eviction action against owners. Owners filed a separate equity-stripping action against REES and the related entities under Minn.Stat. §§ 325N.01-.18 (2004) (hereinafter chapter 325N). Owners also filed an answer in the eviction proceeding noting the pendency of the chapter 325N action and moved for the district court to dismiss the eviction proceeding or to stay it pending resolution of the chapter 325N action. The district court denied that motion and awarded REES an eviction judgment. Owners appeal, arguing that the district court should have dismissed or stayed the eviction proceeding. REES argues that because owners are no longer in possession of the property, the appeal is moot. Because the appeal is not moot and because the district court properly applied the law and did not abuse its discretion in declining to stay the eviction proceeding, we affirm.

FACTS

In spring 2005, the mortgage on owners’ home was in foreclosure. In May, owners entered an agreement with REES, under which owners purportedly sold their home to a REES-related entity and leased it back, with an option to repurchase the home after making a limited number of timely lease payments. Part of owners’ incentive to enter the arrangement was that some of the equity in their home could be used to pay debts while their payments on the lease were supposed to be approximately what the payments had been under the mortgage that was in foreclosure. The sale-lease-back transaction closed in early June.

After the closing, owners learned that their lease payment would be substantially greater than their mortgage payment had been. Owners defaulted on the REES lease, and REES filed an eviction action against owners. Owners responded by filing (a) an equity-stripping action under chapter 325N against REES and the related entities, alleging, among other things, equity stripping by REES and the related entities, that the parties’ arrangement was not an actual conveyance of the home but an equitable mortgage, and that any agreement between owners and the REES entities should be rescinded; (b) an answer in the eviction proceeding asserting the pendency of the chapter 325N action; and (c) a motion in the eviction proceeding asking the eviction court to dismiss the eviction proceeding or to stay that proceeding pending resolution of the chapter 325N action. The eviction court denied owners’ motion to dismiss or stay the proceeding, and, after a trial in which owners admitted that they defaulted on the REES lease, granted REES an eviction judgment.

Owners appeal. REES argues that because owners vacated the property, the appeal is now moot. Also, Mid-Minnesota Legal Assistance and the State of Minnesota have combined to file a single amicus brief supporting owners.

ISSUES

I. Is this appeal moot because REES has possession of the property?

II. Does the assertion of a claim to title by owners deprive the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the eviction proceeding?

III. Did the district court abuse its discretion by not staying the eviction proceeding because of the pendency of owners’ action brought under chapter 325N?

IV. Did refusing to stay or dismiss the eviction proceeding contravene chapter 325N?

ANALYSIS

I

REES argues that under Lanthier v. Michaelson, 394 N.W.2d 245, 246 (Minn. App.1986), review denied (Minn. Nov. 26, 1986), this appeal is moot because REES now has possession of the property. In a prior appeal in which Lcmthier was cited for this proposition, this court distinguished Lanthier by noting that it involved a voluntary vacation of the premises and rejected the argument: “Where a landlord’s right to possession of property rests only on an unlawful detainer judgment, execution of the associated writ of restitution does not moot an appeal of the underlying judgment.” Scroggins v. Solchaga, 552 N.W.2d 248, 252-53 (Minn.App.1996) (citing Pushor v. Dale, 242 Minn. 564, 567-68, 66 N.W.2d 11, 13-14 (1954)), review denied (Minn. Oct. 29, 1996). Here, at REES’s request, the district court granted REES “an immediate Writ of Recovery for the Premises.” Based on this writ and owners’ inability to post the bond set by the district court pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 504B.371, subd. 3 (2004), owners vacated the property and REES obtained possession. Because REES obtained possession of the property based on the eviction judgment, the owners’ vacation of the property was not voluntary, and this appeal is not moot.

II

Steele v. Bond, 28 Minn. 267, 9 N.W. 772 (1881), states that unlawful-de-tainer proceedings are “summary and special in their nature,” that the unlawful-detainer statutes are to be “construed ... to apply only to the conventional relation of landlord and tenant!,]” and that “[t]he foundation[al] fact upon which the jurisdiction [of the court] rests [in unlawful-de-tainer proceedings] is that the tenant is in possession of the land in consequence and by virtue of [the landlord-tenant] relation, and unlawfully withholds possession after a default in the performance of the terms upon which he entered_” 28 Minn, at 272, 273, 9 N.W. at 774, 775. Amici quote the second and third of these statements and cite cases observing that eviction proceedings are limited to addressing the right to present possession of property. Amici also note that Minn.Stat. § 504B.121 (2004) allows a tenant, under certain circumstances, to challenge a landlord’s title to property in the landlord’s action to recover possession of that property. Amici then argue that a tenant who, in an eviction action, challenges the landlord’s title under Minn.Stat. § 504B.121 deprives the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the eviction action. The gist of amici’s argument seems to be that if a “tenant” can claim title to the property from which the “tenant’s” purported “landlord” is seeking to evict the “tenant,” the relationship between the “tenant” and the “landlord” cannot be the “conventional” landlord-tenant relationship, which Steele says is the jurisdictional basis for an unlawful-detainer action.

While Minn.Stat. § 504B.121 was not cited to the district court for any purpose, questions of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised for the first time on appeal. Cochrane v. Tudor Oaks Condo. Project, 529 N.W.2d 429, 432 (Minn.App. 1995), review denied (Minn. May 31, 1995); see Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.08(c) (stating “[w]henever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action”).

Subject-matter jurisdiction is “a court’s power to hear and determine cases of the general class or category to which the proceedings in question belong!,]” and whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists is reviewed de novo. Bode v. Minn. Dep’t of Natural Res., 594 N.W.2d 257, 259 (Minn.App.1999) (quotation omitted) (defining subject-matter jurisdiction), ajfd, 612 N.W.2d 862 (Minn.2000); Kellar v. Von Holtum, 605 N.W.2d 696, 700 (Minn. 2000) (standard of review). We reject am-ici’s argument that a tenant can deprive a district court of subject-matter jurisdiction to hear an eviction proceeding by challenging, under Minn.Stat. § 504B.121, a landlord’s title to the premises. Steele remains good law regarding the summary nature of unlawful-detainer/eviction proceedings. See Minn.Stat. § 504B.001, subd. 4 (2004) (defining “eviction” as “a summary court proceeding to remove a tenant or occupant from or otherwise recover possession of real property”). But Steele is stale regarding jurisdiction.

Steele was decided in 1881 and involved an unlawful-detainer appeal from a St. Paul Municipal Court. 28 Minn, at 269, 9 N.W. at 772. At that time, unlawful-de-tainer proceedings were generally heard by justices of the peace, but in the City of St. Paul, unlawful-detainer proceedings were heard in municipal court. Minn. Gen.Stat. ch. 84, § 2 (1878) (authority of justices of the peace in unlawful-detainer actions); Minn. GemStat. ch. 64, § 87 (1878) (conferring on St. Paul Municipal Court powers of justice of the peace, among other things). In addressing the scope of the St. Paul Municipal Court’s ability to act, Steele reasoned by analogy to justices of the peace:

[Jjustices’ courts are not appropriate tribunals for the administration of equity jurisprudence, and the course of proceedings therein is not adapted to administer equitable relief; nor can it be construed to confer power or jurisdiction to try disputed questions of title to real estate, because the constitution expressly withholds the exercise of such power from justices of the peace.

28 Minn, at 278, 9 N.W. at 774. Thus, Steele’s statements that the foundation for the court’s jurisdiction in an unlawful-de-tainer proceeding is the existence of a conventional landlord-tenant relationship were made in a context in which the tribunals hearing unlawful-detainer proceedings were prohibited from addressing title to land and lacked equitable powers. Under that state of the law, if a tenant challenged a landlord’s title to the property at issue, that title dispute could not be heard by the tribunal then assigned to hear unlawful detainers.

Since Steele, the legal landscape for landlord-tenant disputes has changed. Among other things, in 1898, the supreme court ruled in an ejectment action that “a lessee cannot deny the title of his landlord, and this rule applies whether the tenant was in possession before the lease was made or not.”' Sage v. Halversen, 72 Minn. 294, 295, 75 N.W. 229, 229 (1898). In 1899, less than eight months after the Sage decision, the legislature passed a statute prohibiting lessees-in-possession from disputing a landlord’s title in a landlord’s action to recover possession of the premises, but also stating that the prohibition did not apply to lessees who, at and before entering the lease, were “already in possession of the leased lands or tenements under any claim or title adverse or hostile to that of such lessor.” 1899 Minn. Laws ch. 13, §§ 1, 2 at 9-10; cf. Hoben v. City of Minneapolis, 324 N.W.2d 161, 163 (Minn.1982) (noting prompt legislative action after supreme court decision indicates legislature’s action was in response to supreme court’s decision).

The 1899 statute, with renumerations and minor amendments, is the current MinmStat. § 504B.121 upon which amici base their argument that a tenant’s title challenge under Minn.Stat. § 504B.121 deprives the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction to hear an eviction proceeding. The current version of the statute allows a tenant to challenge a landlord’s title “in an action brought by the landlord to recover possession of the property” if “prior to entering into the lease, [the tenant] possessed the property under a claim of title that was adverse or hostile to that of the landlord.” Minn.Stat. § 504B.121. Reading the current statute to allow a tenant in an eviction proceeding to challenge a landlord’s title to property recognizes the fact that there has not always been a universal prohibition on unlawful-detainer proceedings addressing title questions. Indeed, a 1917 amendment of the statute governing the Minneapolis Municipal Courts granted them jurisdiction over unlawful-detainer proceedings “whether involving the title to real estate or not.” 1917 Minn. Laws ch. 407, §§ 1, 3 at 616; see Dahlberg v. Young, 231 Minn. 60, 64-68, 42 N.W.2d 570, 574-576 (1950) (discussing 1917 amendment and stating “[t]he obvious purpose [of the amendment] was merely to extend the court’s jurisdiction in this type of action to cases involving disputes as to thé title, which disputes, however, did not require an exercise of purely equitable relief for their determination”).

Other changes in the legal landscape for landlord-tenant disputes occurred when the Minnesota trial benches were consolidated into a single district court. That district court has original jurisdiction “in all civil actions ... [and] in all special proceedings not exclusively cognizable by some other court or tribunal.” Minn.Stat. § 484.01, subd. 1 (2004). Also, the district court does not lack the equitable powers that even the municipal courts benefiting from the 1917 expansion of municipal-court jurisdiction lacked. Similarly, in the late 1990s, the landlord-tenant statutes were consolidated, resulting in the former unlawful-detainer statutes being replaced by the current eviction statutes.

This background for eviction proceedings shows that the limited scope of those proceedings is a result of the summary nature of the prior unlawful-detainer proceedings as well as the fact that, originally, the tribunals hearing unlawful-detainer proceedings lacked both jurisdiction to address title matters and jurisdiction to act in equity. The summary nature of the eviction proceeding remains. Minn.Stat. § 504B.001, subd. 4. The title-related and equity-related jurisdictional limitations of the tribunals hearing those matters, however, have been removed. Therefore, any current limitation on the scope of eviction proceedings is a function of the summary nature of the proceeding, not a limit on the ability of the court to “hear and determine” the action, per Bode’s definition of subject-matter jurisdiction. Alternatively stated: That unlawful-detainer proceedings did not, and eviction proceedings do not, address matters other than the immediate right to possession of the property was and is a general rule, not a universally applicable axiom. Cf Lilyerd v. Carlson, 499 N.W.2d 803, 812 (Minn.1993) (stating “[w]hile an unlawful detainer action is generally summary in nature, determines only present possessory rights, and usually does not bar subsequent actions involving title or equitable rights of the parties, the counterclaim here could have been tried to a jury” (emphasis added) (citations omitted)); AMRESCO Residential Mortgage Corp. v. Stange, 631 N.W.2d 444, 445 (Minn.App.2001) (noting, in eviction proceeding, that “the Minnesota Supreme Court has suggested in dicta that, even though [unlawful-detainer] proceedings are usually summary in nature, a counterclaim involving title should have been heard in an eviction proceeding to avoid the problems that later arose in a separate title action” (citing Lilyerd)). Because the current limits on the scope of eviction proceedings are not based on an inability of the district court to adjudicate disputes other than the right to present possession of the premises, a tenant who challenges a landlord’s title pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 504B.121 does not deprive the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the eviction proceeding.

Ill

Owners argue that the district court should have stayed or dismissed the eviction proceeding to allow owners’ chapter 325N action to be resolved before the eviction proceeding was resolved. Generally, whether to stay a proceeding is discretionary with the district court, its decision on the issue will not be altered on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion, and the test for whether an abuse of discretion occurs is “whether a denial of a continuance would prejudice the outcome of the trial.” Lanzo v. F & D Motor Works, 396 N.W.2d 631, 635 (MinmApp. 1986).

A. Minn.Stat. § 50J/.B.121

Owners argue that, based on the exception in Minn.Stat. § 504B.121 (2004) and “the evidence received at trial regarding the true legal relationship of the parties, the district court erred[ ] in its determination that a pure landlord-tenant relationship existed and that [REES] was entitled to possession.” While the question of a stay or dismissal was presented to the district court, the record shows that Minn.Stat. § 504B.121 was not mentioned, either as the basis for a stay or a dismissal, or for any other reason. Therefore, we conclude that the impact of Minn.Stat. § 504B.121 on the question of whether the eviction court should have stayed the eviction proceeding is not properly before this court, and we decline to address it. See Thiele v. Stick, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn.1988) (stating that generally appellate courts consider only issues presented to and considered by the district court and that a party cannot “obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory” on appeal). Our conclusion here is not meant to trivialize the extent or import of the problem of equity-stripping. Likewise, we take no position on whether, or to what extent, equity-stripping may have occurred here.

B. Loss of Premises

Citing language in the original bill that later became chapter 325N and language from a summary of the proposed chapter 325N provided to the legislature by the House Research Committee, owners challenge the eviction court’s refusal to stay or dismiss the eviction action, alleging that

[o]nce the foreclosed homeowner is dispossessed of their home, the foreclosure purchaser is in control of the property and may either re-let the property, or worse, sell the property to a good faith purchaser. The effect of a conveyance of the property from the foreclosure purchaser to a good faith purchaser, by statute prohibits the foreclosed homeowner from affecting the rights of the good faith purchaser in the property. MinmStat. § 325N.18, subd. 3.[]

The crux of this argument seems to be owners’ assumption that if REES prevails in the eviction proceeding and conveys the property before the resolution of owners’ action under chapter 325N, MinmStat. § 325N.18 (2004) could leave owners without an ability to recover the property in the event owners prevail in their chapter 325N action.

The relevant part of MinmStat. § 325N.18, subd. 3, states that “[n]o action under this section shall affect the rights in the foreclosed property held by a good faith purchaser for value under [statutory provisions not at issue here], or other applicable law.” While we cannot definitively comment on a transaction that is not currently before us for review, we note that, in addition to asking the eviction court to stay the eviction proceeding, owners appear to have had other options for protecting their alleged interests in the property, including the filing of a notice of lis pen-dens regarding their chapter 325N action. Cfi MinmStat. § 557.02 (2004) (explaining impact of notice of lis pendens); Miller v. Hennen, 438 N.W.2d 366, 369 (Minn.1989) (defining purchaser in good faith). Also, owners could have, in the chapter 325N action, moved that district court to enjoin the eviction proceedings. See William Weisman Holding Co. v. Miller, 152 Minn. 330, 332, 188 N.W. 732, 733 (1922) (noting that a court in which an equitable action is pending may enjoin the prosecution of an unlawful-detainer action upon proper showing that he ought not be ousted); AMRESCO, 631 N.W.2d at 446. Because owners did not attempt to exercise other apparently available options for seeking to protect their alleged interests in the property, they have not shown that the eviction court abused its discretion by not staying the eviction proceeding. Cf. Fraser v. Fraser, 642 N.W.2d 34, 40-41 (MinmApp. 2002) (stating that “only if’ there were no other options for litigating an equitable claim would it be appropriate for eviction court to entertain the claim).

IY

Amici argue that allowing an eviction proceeding to finish before a chapter 325N action is resolved is inconsistent with chapter 325N because allowing the eviction proceeding to go forward allows the landlord, who may, in the chapter 325N action, be found to lack title to the property, to obtain possession of the property and possibly convey it. But amici’s argument does not address the tenant’s opportunities to (a) file a notice of lis pendens; (b) ask the chapter 325N district court to enjoin pursuit of the eviction proceeding; (c) recover compensatory damages in the chapter 325N action; (d) recover exemplary damages in the chapter 325N action, which, under MinmStat. § 325N.18, subd. 2 (2004), “shall not be less than 1-1/2 times the foreclosed homeowner’s actual damages”; or (e) seek any other remedy available to the tenant as allowed by Minn.Stat. § 325N.18, subd. 3 (2004). Moreover, to the extent that the district court hearing a chapter 325N action has the information relevant to that action, that district court would be ideally situated to decide whether, to what extent, and under what conditions, to enjoin a related eviction proceeding. Case-by-case determinations of whether to enjoin pursuit of eviction proceedings are both judicially more efficient (because the decision-maker may have more information and a broader spectrum of issues before it) and more consistent with honoring the summary nature of eviction proceedings. We decline to adopt a universal requirement that eviction proceedings be stayed whenever a claim is asserted under chapter 325N.

DECISION

Because owners vacated the property only to avoid imminent enforcement of the eviction judgment, this appeal is not moot. Also, the fact that owners raised a title question in this eviction proceeding, under MinmStat. § 504B.121, does not deprive the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction to address the eviction proceeding. Finally, because owners apparently had ways to protect their alleged interests in the property other than obtaining a stay of the eviction proceeding from the eviction court, owners have not shown that the eviction court abused its discretion by declining to stay that proceeding or otherwise acted in a manner contrary to chapter 325N.

Affirmed.

      . Because the questions are not squarely before us in this appeal, we decline to comment on the fact that it was not until chapter 504B became effective that what is Minn.Stat. § 504B.121 was put into the same chapter as what are the current eviction provisions and that neither Minn.Stat. § 504B.121 nor its predecessors have been previously cited in an eviction/unlawful-detainer proceeding.

      . See, e.g., Gallagher v. Moffet, 233 Minn. 330, 333, 46 N.W.2d 792, 793 (1951) (stating that unlawful-detainer proceeding "merely determines the right to present possession and does not adjudicate the ultimate legal or equitable rights of ownership possessed by the parties"); Keller v. Henvit, 219 Minn. 580, 585, 18 N.W.2d 544, 547 (1945) (stating that unlawful-detainer provisions were “not designed to try title or to serve as a substitute for ejectment. Instead, these provisions were intended to prevent parties from taking the law into their own hands”).

      . Because Steele is stale regarding jurisdiction, we need not address owners' Steele-based argument that the lack of a conventional landlord-tenant relationship precluded the district court from proceeding with the eviction action. Owners cite Beecher v. Spain, 140 Minn. 255, 167 N.W. 793 (1918), for the same proposition. But Beecher does not indicate whether the municipal court made its decision before or after the effective date of the 1917 amendments allowing Minneapolis Municipal Courts to address unlawful-detain-er proceedings involving title. Beecher cites only Steele as authority for the relevant portion of the opinion. Therefore, Beecher apparently did not contemplate the 1917 amendments and the analysis above addresses owners' Beecher-based argument as well.

      . Owners admit that the language they cite from the prior version of the bill was not included in the bill that was ultimately enacted.