Manor v. Gales, 649 N.W.2d 892 (2002)

Citation: Manor v. Gales, 649 N.W.2d 892 (2002)
Parent Document: Manor v. Gales, 649 N.W.2d 892 (2002)
Jurisdiction: Minnesota (state)
Effective Date: 2002-08-27
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1932474/manor-v-gales/ ↗

Full Text

1,033 chars

Because the plain reading of the regulation contains no qualification or threshold for “adverse financial effect,” the trial court erred when it failed to find that appellant’s administrative costs meet the standard. The trial court’s error is twofold. First, the trial court made no findings regarding appellant’s administrative costs, despite ample evidence of the costs incurred. Howell’s testimony regarding the time involved with filing more than 70 late-rent and eviction notices certainly satisfies any accepted meaning of “adverse financial effect.” Second, the trial court premised its holding on the belief that appellant suffered no adverse financial effect because it recovered all the costs to which the law entitles it. But the HUD regulation is concerned with the costs incurred, not merely with the costs that go uncompensated. Thus, although a landlord may recover all the costs allowed under the law, it is possible, as happened here, that a landlord will suffer costs beyond those for which the law compensates it.

Other Sections in This Document (44)

Full Text