Showing 21–40 of 107 results
On March 28, 1984, appellant notified respondents of a rent increase to $910 per month effective June 1, 1984. Respondents refused to pay the increase, and appellant sued for unpaid rent and unlawful detainer.
Subd. 3. Rent increases limited. A park owner may impose only two rent increases on a resident in any 12-month period.
Second, under appellant’s proposed construction, if a court were to determine— apparently by some unarticulated, non-rule-based method — that a rent increase is unreasonable, the rent increase would be subject to an evaluation of reasonableness under section 327C...
Noticeably absent from the memorandum is any mention of rent increases. The only restriction, control, or regulation concerning rent is the requirement that rents be uniform within a park. Moreover, reasonableness is only discussed in the context of park rules...
On August 1,1974, members of WBTU began withholding rent from UCPI. On September 27, 1974, an agreement (hereinafter the “September Agreement”) was reached between the two parties. The September Agreement modified the rent increases for current tenants according to...
...And because the language applies to rules and a rent increase is not a rule, we hold that section 327C.05, subdivision 1, does not apply to a series of rent increases. DECISION
Finally, the rent was increased to $910 per month effective June 1984. Respondents refused to pay this increase.
...2, does not impose a reasonableness requirement on manufactured-home-park-lot rent increases and because Minn.Stat. § 327C.05, subd. 1, does not apply to manufactured-home-park-lot rent increases, the district court did not err by entering...
In June 1981, appellant gave notice of a rent increase to $640 per month. In response, respondents wrote that they wished to remain on a six month lease at the new rental rate. Respondents had a dispute with appellant about...
In October 1982, appellant notified respondents of the next rent increase, to $750 per month. That letter also notified appellants that their original lease expired on March 30, 1982, and that they had been month-to-month tenants ever since...
Subdivision 1. Notice of rent increases required. No increase in the amount of the periodic rental payment due from a resident shall be valid unless the park owner gives the resident 60 days’ written notice of the increase.
...Moreover, and of great significance, interpreting chapter 327C to impose a reasonableness requirement on rent increases is a policy determination beyond this court’s authority. Thus, while we are mindful of the requirement that we construe every law, if possible...
Appellant argues that we should interpret section 327C.02, subdivision 2, as imposing a reasonableness requirement on rent increases. Appellant contends that under section 327C.02, subdivision 2, an unreasonable rent increase is a rule change that must comply with...
...Since reasonable notice was given, the rent increase to $910 per month went into effect in June 1984. Therefore, the trial court erred in denying appellant’s claims. We reverse and remand for a determination in keeping with this ruling...
In summary, construing the word “reasonable” in section 327C.02, subdivision 2, as imposing a reasonableness requirement on rent increases is inconsistent with the statutory scheme distinguishing “rules” from “rent,” yields an absurd result, and is *313
MacAtee argues that Rolling Meadows’s “eviction was based on [her] failure to pay the rent increase,” not on her holdover status, and that she therefore “was allowed to redeem her tenancy” under Minn. Stat. § 504B.291 (2016), anytime before...
We next review the district court’s declaration that the following prohibition does not apply to rent increases: “No park owner may engage in a course of conduct which is unreasonable in light of the criteria set forth in section...
The portion of section 327C.02, subdivision 2, at issue here provides: “A reasonable rent increase made in compliance with section 327C.06 [governing rent increases] is not a substantial modification of the rental agreement and is not considered to...
at *1. We were not asked to consider or determine the reasonableness of the rent increase under section 327.02, subdivision 2. 2
...Appellant argued that the increase is unreasonable because (1) it set the rent at a level substantially higher than that of other comparable parks in the region, (2) it is part of a 23%-24% rent increase over the course...