Minnesota Supreme Court · US (MN) · 2020 · Decided; remand followed
Citation/Docket: 944 N.W.2d 235 (Minn. 2020)
Posture: Funder sued to enforce consumer funding agreement
Funder(s) involved: Prospect Funding Partners
A personal-injury plaintiff received a purchase agreement advance; when she resisted repayment, litigation tested Minnesota's common-law champerty bar.
Minnesota Supreme Court abolished common-law champerty prospectively, citing modern safeguards; on remand courts still scrutinized the agreement's terms (e.g., rates) for unconscionability.
Champerty's decline does not end scrutiny, unconscionability and rate review survive as the second line of attack on consumer agreements.
Matters like this one often turn on expert testimony, on valuation, industry custom and practice, legal ethics, or damages. The Institute partners with world-class expert witness referral companies for this purpose.
Compiled from public sources (court filings, published opinions, and secondary reporting) as part of the Institute's Phase 1 Dispute Library research. This is educational material, not legal advice; case citations should be independently verified before relied upon.