Mary Cocchiarella v. Donald Driggs, 884 N.W.2d 621 (2016)

Citation: Mary Cocchiarella v. Donald Driggs, 884 N.W.2d 621 (2016)
Parent Document: Mary Cocchiarella v. Donald Driggs, 884 N.W.2d 621 (2016)
Jurisdiction: Minnesota (state)
Effective Date: 2016-08-31
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4252990/mary-cocchiarella-v-donald-driggs/ ↗

Full Text

925 chars

Second, Driggs’s and the court of appeals’ proposed interpretation, which deems physical occupancy a condition precedent, to qualifying as a “residential tenant” under chapter 504B, is unreasonable.4 This interpretation not only adds a physical occupancy requirement that does not exist at common law, but also conflicts with other provisions of chapter 504B. For example, a consequence of the interpretation proposed by Driggs and the court of appeals is that a tenant who, .prior to move-in, discovers a severe housing code violation — such as. noxious c.onditions or the lack of heat or running water — would not qualify as a “residential tenant”. in order to bring a tenant’s remedies action in district, court, Minn.Stat. § 504B.395, subd. 1(1). Our interpretation extends the remedies under the statute to a tenant who holds the present legal right to occupy residential rental property pursuant to a lease or contract.

Other Sections in This Document (444)

Full Text