Hunter v. Anchor Bank, N.A., 842 N.W.2d 10

In 2004, Hunter borrowed $265,000 from Anchor Bank to buy a home for her adult son, secured by a mortgage on both properties (son’s home and Hunter’s home).
Anchor Bank assigned the loan and mortgage to Emigrant Mortgage Company, which foreclosed by advertisement in 2011 under Minn. Stat. § 580.05.
The sale included both mortgaged parcels in one foreclosure sale, contrary to Minn. Stat. § 580.08, which requires separate sales for separate parcels.
Hunter filed suit in 2012 seeking to set aside the foreclosure sale and other relief; she later sought to amend to add claims including TILA.
The district court granted summary judgment to Anchor Bank and Emigrant Mortgage on most claims and denied amending the complaint; the court granted Emigrant Mortgage summary judgment on Hunter’s challenge to the foreclosure sale.
This appeal concerns whether the sale was void due to noncompliance with § 580.08, whether counts 1–4 are time-barred or barred by the statute of frauds, and whether Hunter should be allowed to amend to add a TILA claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the foreclosure sale was void for violating § 580.08	Hunter: sale of separate parcels together violates § 580.08; sale must be void.	Emigrant Mortgage: noncompliance is voidable, not void; burden on mortgagor to show prejudice.	Sale is void for noncompliance; § 580.08 requires strict compliance.
Whether counts 1–4 are barred by statute of limitations or statute of frauds	Hunter contends claims timely and not barred.	District court properly relied on statute of limitations and statute of frauds.	Counts 1–4 barred by statute of frauds; plaintiff forfeited challenge to limitations ground; independent basis supports judgment.
Whether the district court erred in denying amendment to add a TILA claim	Hunter seeks TILA recoupment theory; claims were timely if recoupment permitted.	No damages sought; recoupment exception in § 1640(e) does not apply; not viable.	District court did not err; TILA claim would not survive and amendment was properly denied.
Remedy for noncompliant sale (void vs voidable) under Willard/Clark/Phelps lineage	Traditionally, noncompliant sales are voidable; practical titles concerns support voidable remedy.	Recent caselaw favors strict, absolute void for noncompliance.	Court adheres to strict-compliance approach for § 580.08 in deciding voidness; remand for further proceedings on set-aside relief.

Ruiz v. 1st Fid. Loan Servicing, LLC, 829 N.W.2d 53 (Minn. 2013) (strict compliance; recording requirement; void foreclosure when noncompliant (580.02))
Jackson v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 770 N.W.2d 487 (Minn. 2009) (foreclosure-by-advertisement requires exact compliance; strict standards)
Moore v. Carlson, 128 N.W. 578 (Minn. 1910) (foreclosure by advertisement must be strictly followed; void if not)
Sander v. Stenger, 136 N.W. 4, 5 (Minn. 1912) (reiterated strict compliance principle for foreclosures)
Willard v. Finnegan, 44 N.W. 985 (Minn. 1890) (sale contrary to statute is voidable for good cause; later cases limited remedy)
Clark v. Kraker, 53 N.W. 706 (Minn. 1892) (single foreclosure sale of multiple parcels not void, but voidable for good cause)
Phelps v. Western Realty Co., 94 N.W. 1085 (Minn. 1903) (line of cases: voidable for good cause; builds Willard framework)
Mulroy v. Sioux Falls Trust & Sav. Bank, 206 N.W. 461 (Minn. 1925) (part of historicalWillard-Clark-Phelps lineage)
Northland Pine Co. v. Northern Insulating Co., 177 N.W. 635 (Minn. 1920) (early foreclosure practice context)
Beecroft v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 798 N.W.2d 78 (Minn. App. 2011) (title-record integrity concerns in foreclosure)
Embree v. U.S. Bank N.A., 828 N.W.2d 141 (Minn. App. 2013) (applies strict-compliance approach in related section 580)