Showing 1–20 of 107 results
504B.147 TIME PERIOD FOR NOTICE TO QUIT OR RENT INCREASE. § Subdivision 1. Application.
(2) the time period provided in the lease for the landlord to give a notice to quit the premises or notice of a rent increase. § Subd. 3. Landlord notice requirements.
The landlord may not give a notice to quit the premises or notice of a rent increase that is shorter than the time period the lease provides for the tenant to give notice of an intention to quit the premises...
In any proceeding for the recovery of premises upon the ground of nonpayment of rent, it is a defense if the tenant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff increased the tenant's rent or decreased the...
(a) A landlord may not increase rent, decrease services, alter an existing rental agreement, file a legal action against a tenant, contact federal or state law enforcement related to a tenant's immigration status, or seek to recover possession or...
...If the residential tenant report has not been used to deny the rental or increase the rent or security deposit of a residential housing unit within the past 30 days, the residential tenant screening service may impose a reasonable charge...
This section applies to a residential lease that provides a time period for the landlord to give notice to quit the premises or notice of a rent increase that is different than the time period the tenant is required to...
...But the reasonableness of a rent increase is not listed as a defense to an eviction based on nonpayment of a rent increase; instead, the listed defenses are based on the restrictions on rent increases set forth in section 327C...
...Appellant’s argument, however, reverses this process; it would use a determination that a rent increase is unreasonable to make that rent increase a rule. Chapter 327C, however, lacks a standard for determining whether a rent increase is reasonable. See
park owners to increase rent up to two times a year, provided residents affected by the increase are given 60 days’ written notice. But Bethel’s decision to provide the required notice proper for a rent increase when imposing utility...
...Appellant argues that when the legislature excluded reasonable rent increases from the provisions prohibiting substantial modifications of a rental agreement and requiring compliance with the reasonableness standards of section 327C.01, subdivision 8, the legislature intended that any other type...
We therefore hold that a rent increase is not a rule change for purposes of chapter 327C and affirm the district court’s conclusion that any requirement for “reasonableness” set forth in section 327C.02 does not apply to increases...
In August 2009, the parties moved for a declaratory judgment establishing whether manufactured-home-park-lot rent increases are subject to a reasonableness requirement under Minnesota statutes, and if so, how reasonableness is to be evaluated. The district court determined...
Given the statutory scheme set forth in chapter 327, we agree with respondents’ assertion that “the completeness and detail with which the [legislature addressed rent leads one to conclude that had the [ljegis-lature wanted to address rent increase controls...
Agreement as a defense. Neither Glenn nor Norton had received rent increases nor been denied a grievance procedure regarding rent increases.
at 802. We also stated that the owner’s provision of the notice required for a rent increase had no bearing on whether the addition of utility charges constituted a “rent increase or a rule modification.” Id.
or (b) applying the definition of a reasonable rule to a rent increase to determine whether that increase is a rule, thereby assuming the conclusion that the increase is, in fact, a rule. Neither option is judicially palatable. Moreover, adoption...
we referred to the elimination of individual, metered utility billing and the corresponding implementation of a rent increase as a “rule change.” 2005 WL 1545525, at *2-*4. But we also referred to the change as a “rent increase.” Id.
Thus, it cannot be said that our holding that the rent increase was “not unreasonable” as a matter of law was based on a conclusion that the rent increase constituted a rule change subject to a statutory reasonableness requirement. Id.