When a racial covenant turns up in an abstract, I always get the same first question: does it still bind the land? It doesn’t. It hasn’t for a long time. The Minnesota Legislature settled it in one clause of Minn. Stat. § 507.18, subd. 2:
Every provision referred to in subdivision 1 shall be void, regardless of the year the written instrument was executed, but the instrument shall have full force in all other respects and shall be construed as if no such provision were contained therein.
Nothing in that sentence depends on recording anything. Subdivision 5 says it again, in case anybody missed it: a restrictive covenant affecting a protected class “is void regardless of whether a statutory form as provided for in this section has been recorded in the office of the county recorder in the county where the real property affected by the restrictive covenant is located.”
So the discharge form doesn’t make the covenant void. The covenant was already void. What the form does is put that answer in the county’s index, where a title examiner, a lender, an underwriter, and the next buyer will find it without having to reason their way there. That’s worth doing. It isn’t a legal change, and anybody who calls it one has it wrong.
The mechanics are what actually matter, and one carve-out sends a big share of Minnesota property owners somewhere else entirely.
Subdivision 1 looks forward. Subdivision 2 reaches back.
That split is how the whole section is built.
Subdivision 1 covers instruments made after it was enacted: “No written instrument hereafter made, relating to or affecting real estate, shall contain any provision against conveying, mortgaging, encumbering, or leasing any real estate to any person of a specified religious faith, creed, national origin, race, or color, nor shall any such written instrument contain any provision of any kind or character discriminating against any class of persons because of their religious faith, creed, national origin, race, or color.” It ends with an anti-evasion rule: any “form of expression or description which is commonly understood as designating or describing” one of those characteristics has the same effect as the ordinary name.
Subdivision 2 takes the same class of provisions and voids them no matter the date. So the 1926 covenant is void under subdivision 2 even though subdivision 1 couldn’t have stopped anybody from writing it.
Subdivision 3 sets the reach. “Written instruments relating to or affecting real estate” embraces “every writing relating to or affecting any right, title, or interest in real estate, and includes, among other things, plats and wills,” and “provision” embraces “all clauses, stipulations, restrictions, covenants, and conditions of the kind or character referred to in subdivision 1.” Plats are named outright, and that matters. A lot of this language sits in recorded plat dedications, not in individual deeds.
Who is a “protected class” for purposes of this section?
Five characteristics. That’s a shorter list than the Minnesota Human Rights Act’s. Subdivision 3 defines the term for this section only:
As used in this section, the term “protected class” means any class of persons identified by their race, color, creed, national origin, or religious beliefs.
Race, color, creed, national origin, and religious beliefs. Five.
Now compare Minn. Stat. § 363A.09, subd. 1, the Human Rights Act’s real-property provision. It bars an owner, lessee, sublessee, assignee, managing agent, or other person with the right to sell, rent, or lease from refusing or withholding real property “because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation, or familial status.” That’s twelve.
Here’s why the gap matters. A recorded restriction aimed at something on the longer list but not the shorter one (sex, disability, or familial status, for instance) isn’t within § 507.18, subd. 2’s voidness rule, and it isn’t within the subdivision 5–6 discharge form. It may well be unlawful to enforce under the Human Rights Act, under the federal Fair Housing Act, or under general public-policy principles. But that’s a different analysis, and the free form isn’t the tool. For the discrimination framework itself, see Housing Discrimination Under Minn. Stat. § 363A.09.
What recording the form actually does
Subdivision 5 gives it a defined legal effect and then fences it in right away:
The discharge of the restrictive covenant is valid and enforceable under the law of Minnesota when the statutory form provided in subdivision 6 is properly recorded, but the instrument containing such restrictive covenants shall have full force in all other respects and shall be construed as if no such restrictive covenant were contained therein.
So a properly recorded form is an enforceable discharge in its own right. It isn’t just a memo of somebody’s opinion. And the underlying instrument survives. The deed, the plat, the declaration all keep working on every other term in them. Recording the form doesn’t delete the covenant language from the historical record, doesn’t alter the recorded original, and doesn’t disturb any legitimate covenant sitting next to the offensive one.
The right to record belongs to “[t]he owner of any interest in real property” — not just the fee owner — and you record in “the office of the county recorder of any county where the real property is located.”
It’s free. Subdivision 5 says the owner may record “at no cost.” Subdivision 6(b) adds that “[t]he commissioner of commerce must provide electronic copies of the statutory form in this subdivision to the public at no cost.”
Four things the recorder needs before it must accept the form
They’re all in subdivision 6(a), which says the county recorder “must accept” the form when it:
- “has been executed before a notary”;
- “contains the legal description of the real property affected by the restrictive covenant related to a protected class”;
- “contains the date of recording of the instrument containing the restrictive covenant, and the volume and page number or document number of the instrument”; and
- “complies with all other recording requirements.”
Number 3 is where I see these fail. The form isn’t a general statement that the neighborhood once had covenants. It discharges one specific instrument, and it needs the recording date plus either the book-and-page or the document number of the instrument with the covenant in it. That means pulling the abstract or ordering the document. A plat map or a neighborhood history project won’t get you there. Number 4 pulls in the ordinary recording rules, so the usual formatting and legibility standards still apply.
The statutory form in subdivision 6(d) is an affidavit. The owner swears to being 18 or older and under no legal incapacity, and swears — “based on the information available and based on reasonable information and belief” — to the six recitals in the form, including the identification of the instrument.
Recording extends nothing and revives nothing
The Legislature said so flat out in subdivision 6(c):
The recording of this form does not alter or affect the duration or expiration of covenants, conditions, or restrictions under section 500.20 and may not be used to extend the effect of a covenant, condition, or restriction.
That’s a guardrail against an accidental side effect. A filing that names a covenant and describes the land could otherwise look like an attempt to preserve it. It isn’t. Minn. Stat. § 500.20, subd. 2a’s thirty-year cutoff for private covenants runs on its own clock either way. That provision and how it works with the Marketable Title Act are covered in The Minnesota Marketable Title Act.
Is there money in this?
Not much, and it’s aimed at a narrow target. Here’s all of subdivision 4:
Every person who violates subdivision 1, or aids or incites another to do so, shall be liable in a civil action to the person aggrieved in damages not exceeding $500.
Look at what triggers it. Liability attaches to violating subdivision 1, and subdivision 1 by its terms governs instruments “hereafter made.” The $500 ceiling is there to deter somebody from drafting a new discriminatory instrument, or aiding or inciting someone else to. It isn’t a damages remedy against a present-day owner whose chain of title happens to contain a 1937 covenant nobody has tried to enforce. It’s capped, it runs to “the person aggrieved,” and $500 is the maximum, not a floor.
If someone actually refused to sell, rent, lease, or finance today, this subdivision isn’t your remedy. The Human Rights Act or the federal Fair Housing Act is, with their own procedures, deadlines, and damages.
Torrens property is carved out. All of it.
If the property is registered under the Torrens system, you can’t use the discharge form. Subdivision 5 says it in one sentence: “This subdivision does not apply to real property registered under chapters 508 and 508A.”
That’s a big exclusion, and I never assume it away. Whether a parcel is Torrens-registered has nothing to do with whether its chain of title carries a mid-century covenant. Those are two separate facts about the same property. So check registration status before you assume the free form is even on the table.
Now, what the carve-out takes away and what it doesn’t. Subdivision 2 has no Torrens exception. A covenant of this kind on registered land is void exactly the way it’s void on abstract land. What subdivision 5 holds back is the free do-it-yourself recording route. That shouldn’t surprise anyone: subdivision 6 tells the county recorder to accept the form, and the register of titles is kept by the registrar of titles under a different chapter.
Section 507.18 doesn’t give registered land a replacement route. It says nothing at all about what a Torrens owner should do instead. The general Torrens law does have a mechanism that reaches this problem, and it isn’t the recorder. Chapter 508 starts from a prohibition, Minn. Stat. § 508.71, subd. 1: “No erasure, alteration, or amendment shall be made upon the register of titles after the entry of a certificate of title or of any memorial on it, and the attestation of the same by the registrar, except by order of the court or as otherwise provided in this chapter.” Subdivision 3 of the same section is one of the “otherwise provided” exceptions, and it names this exact problem:
At the request of a registered owner or other person in interest, the examiner of titles by a written directive may order (1) the amendment or cancellation of a memorial relating to racial restrictions, rights which are barred by a statute or rights which have expired by the terms of the instrument creating the rights, (2) upon the submission of evidence satisfactory to the examiner, the correction of the name or designation of a party who is a registered owner or who has an interest registered on a certificate of title, or (3) the deletion of easements or other nonfee interests which are terminated by their own terms or by written instrument satisfactory to the examiner.
Here’s how that’s different from subdivision 5’s abstract-land route. This is a request to the examiner of titles, not a filing the registrar has to accept. The verb is “may order,” not “must accept.” It works on a memorial on a certificate of title, so it assumes the restriction was carried forward as a memorial, and you find that out by reading the certificate. And nothing in § 508.71 makes it free. For how registered land differs in general, see Torrens Registered Land in Minnesota.
How I work one of these
- Figure out abstract or Torrens before anything else. The answer decides whether the subdivision 5–6 form is even on the table.
- Find the instrument, not the story. Subdivision 6(a)(3) requires the recording date and the volume and page or document number. Order the document.
- Read the whole instrument. Subdivision 2 keeps everything else in it alive, and the same document may hold easements, setbacks, or party-wall terms that still operate and still matter at closing. Related disclosure duties on a sale are covered in Disclosure Duties in a Minnesota Purchase Agreement.
- Check the characteristic against subdivision 3’s five-item list. If the restriction targets something outside it, this is the wrong instrument, and the analysis moves to the Human Rights Act.
- Don’t treat recording as a prerequisite to anything. A buyer, a lender, or a title company that conditions a closing on the covenant being “removed” is asking for a record cleanup, not the cure of an enforceability defect. Subdivision 5’s final sentence answers that request.
- If the land is registered, plan on the examiner of titles. Budget for it as a title matter, not a form filing.
Madgett Law, LLC
Madgett Law, LLC handles Minnesota real property title work: chain-of-title review, discharge and cancellation of recorded restrictions, Torrens proceedings and examiner directives, and housing discrimination claims under state and federal law. If a title search turned up a restriction you need dealt with before closing, send us a message or call 612-470-6529.
Sources: Minn. Stat. § 507.18 (Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes), specifically subd. 1 (prohibition on instruments “hereafter made”; the five characteristics; the anti-evasion rule for descriptions commonly understood as designating them); subd. 2 (every provision referred to in subdivision 1 is void “regardless of the year the written instrument was executed,” with the balance of the instrument in full force); subd. 3 (definition of “written instruments relating to or affecting real estate,” expressly including plats and wills; definition of “provision”; definition of “protected class” as race, color, creed, national origin, or religious beliefs); subd. 4 (civil damages not exceeding $500 against a person who violates subdivision 1 or aids or incites another to do so); subd. 5 (right of the owner of any interest to record the subdivision 6 form at no cost with the county recorder; the exclusion of property registered under chapters 508 and 508A; the recorded discharge is valid and enforceable while the underlying instrument retains full force in all other respects; the covenant is void whether or not the form is recorded); subd. 6(a)(1)–(4) (the four conditions on which the county recorder must accept the form); subd. 6(b) (commissioner of commerce to supply electronic copies at no cost); subd. 6(c) (recording does not alter or affect duration or expiration under § 500.20 and may not be used to extend a covenant); subd. 6(d) (the statutory form, its affidavit structure, and its six recitals). Minn. Stat. § 363A.09, subd. 1 (Human Rights Act real-property provision; the twelve enumerated characteristics), relied on only for the comparison of protected characteristics. Minn. Stat. § 500.20, subd. 2a (thirty-year cutoff for private covenants, conditions, and restrictions), referenced only as the provision § 507.18, subd. 6(c) says the form does not affect. Minn. Stat. § 508.71, subd. 1 (no alteration of the register of titles except by court order or as otherwise provided in chapter 508) and subd. 3 (written directive of the examiner of titles may order amendment or cancellation of a memorial relating to racial restrictions). Whether a particular instrument contains a provision “of the kind or character referred to in subdivision 1,” whether particular property is registered, and whether a restriction was carried forward as a memorial on a certificate of title are fact questions this article does not resolve.
This article is general legal information about Minnesota law. It is not legal advice, it does not create an attorney–client relationship, and no particular outcome is promised or implied. Statutes and case law change; verify the current authority before relying on anything discussed here.