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
866 charsBethel argues that its decision to impose separate water and sewer charges was intended to increase revenue, not to control Sargent, Barrett, and Nisbit’s behavior, and is therefore a rent increase. But Be-thel’s June 1999 letter clearly states that the purpose of the separate charges was to “closely monitor” park residents’ “extraordinary” water consumption. The letter states that payment for the utility “charges will be due along with [Sargent, Barrett, and Nisbit’s] rent payment.” The letter never states or implies that the fees will be incorporated into the rent payment. After Bethel began charging for sewer and water, Sargent, Barrett, and Nisbit’s monthly bills listed “current rent due” and “sewer and water” as separate charges. We note that Bethel did not reduce the amount of rent due when it began charging separately for water and sewer services.