Sargent v. Bethel Properties, Inc., 653 N.W.2d 800 (2002)
- Citation
- Sargent v. Bethel Properties, Inc., 653 N.W.2d 800 (2002)
- Parent Document
- Sargent v. Bethel Properties, Inc., 653 N.W.2d 800 (2002)
- Jurisdiction
- Minnesota (state)
- Effective Date
- 2002-12-10
Other Sections in This Document (24)
- Sargent v. Bethel Properties, Inc., 653 N.W.2d 800 (2002)
- Sargent v. Bethel Properties, Inc., 653 N.W.2d 800 (2002)
- Sargent v. Bethel Properties, Inc., 653 N.W.2d 800 (2002)
- Sargent v. Bethel Properties, Inc., 653 N.W.2d 800 (2002)
- Sargent v. Bethel Properties, Inc., 653 N.W.2d 800 (2002)
- Sargent v. Bethel Properties, Inc., 653 N.W.2d 800 (2002)
- Sargent v. Bethel Properties, Inc., 653 N.W.2d 800 (2002)
- Sargent v. Bethel Properties, Inc., 653 N.W.2d 800 (2002)
- Sargent v. Bethel Properties, Inc., 653 N.W.2d 800 (2002)
- Sargent v. Bethel Properties, Inc., 653 N.W.2d 800 (2002)
- Sargent v. Bethel Properties, Inc., 653 N.W.2d 800 (2002)
- Sargent v. Bethel Properties, Inc., 653 N.W.2d 800 (2002)
- Sargent v. Bethel Properties, Inc., 653 N.W.2d 800 (2002)
- Sargent v. Bethel Properties, Inc., 653 N.W.2d 800 (2002)
- Sargent v. Bethel Properties, Inc., 653 N.W.2d 800 (2002)
- Sargent v. Bethel Properties, Inc., 653 N.W.2d 800 (2002)
- Sargent v. Bethel Properties, Inc., 653 N.W.2d 800 (2002)
- Sargent v. Bethel Properties, Inc., 653 N.W.2d 800 (2002)
- Sargent v. Bethel Properties, Inc., 653 N.W.2d 800 (2002)
- Sargent v. Bethel Properties, Inc., 653 N.W.2d 800 (2002)
- Sargent v. Bethel Properties, Inc., 653 N.W.2d 800 (2002)
- Sargent v. Bethel Properties, Inc., 653 N.W.2d 800 (2002)
- Sargent v. Bethel Properties, Inc., 653 N.W.2d 800 (2002)
- Sargent v. Bethel Properties, Inc., 653 N.W.2d 800 (2002)
Full Text
750 charsSargent, Barrett and Nisbit brought a class action complaint alleging, among other things, that Bethel’s addition of water and sewer fees was a new rule that substantially modified their existing rental agreements, thereby violating both Minn. Stat. §§ 327C.01-12 (2002) and Sargent, Barrett, and Nisbit’s rental agreements, which contained language modeled on chapter 327C. Bethel argued that the utility fees were a permissible rent increase. Sargent, Barrett, and Nisbit moved for summary judgment on the statutory and breach of contract claims and requested injunctive relief precluding Bethel from charging the fees. The district court granted Sargent, Barrett and Nisbit’s motion and issued the injunction requested. This appeal followed. ISSUE