Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Rainbow Terrace, Inc. v. Hutchens, 557 N.W.2d 618 (1997)

Citation
Rainbow Terrace, Inc. v. Hutchens, 557 N.W.2d 618 (1997) 3.
Parent Document
Rainbow Terrace, Inc. v. Hutchens, 557 N.W.2d 618 (1997)
Jurisdiction
Minnesota (state)
Effective Date
1997-01-14

Other Sections in This Document (30)

Full Text

1,177 chars
3. Appellants further contend that even if the notice to vacate had not expired, the district court erred in issuing the writ of restitution because respondent’s notice was defective — it did not indicate the reason for terminating appellants’ tenancy. ' Respondent claims that its basis for the unlawful detainer proceeding was appellants’ failure to have a written rental agreement in accordance with Minn.Stat. § 327C.02, subd. 1. But this basis for termination triggers Minn. Stat. § 327C.09, subd. 3 (relating to termination for violations of law), which requires respondent to give written notice of noncompliance and afford the tenant a reasonable time to remedy the violation before terminating the tenancy. The March 31, 1996, notice to vacate merely informed appellants that they had 30 days to vacate the premises; it did not state the reason for termination. Since appellants were not advised of the reason for termination, they did not have an opportunity to remedy the violation within a reasonable time. Thus, respondent’s failure to satisfy the requirements of Minn.Stat. § 327C.09, subd. 3, supplies an additional reason why it was not entitled to restitution.