Laserfiche WebLink
8 <br /> <br />June 15, The Village’s Vice President filed an affidavit to extinguish residents’ right to purchase <br />under § 327C.095, subd. 11. (TVL Ans. Ex. A.) She stated, based on “personal knowledge,” that <br />Defendants complied with the statute. (Id.) If the park is closed, residents will likely lose their <br />homes and only feasible option for affordable housing in the area where they work, send their <br />kids to school, and have long-held community relationships. (Compl. ¶¶ 5-6; Baez Aff. ¶ 1.) <br />ANALYSIS <br />I. THE LEGISLATURE AMENDED § 327C.095 TO PROTECT MANUFACTURED HOME <br />RESIDENTS FROM HARMS CAUSED BY PARK CLOSURES AND TO PRESERVE AN EVER- <br />SCARCE FORM OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THE STATE. <br />The parties’ motions will require proper construction of § 327C.095. “The object of all <br />interpretation and construction of laws is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the <br />legislature.” Minn. Stat. § 645.16. A statute “free from all ambiguity” is applied by its plain <br />language. Olson v. Ford Motor Co., 558 N.W.2d 491, 494 (Minn. 1997). Courts presume that <br />the Legislature does not intend an “absurd” or “unreasonable” result, “intends the entire statute <br />to be effective and certain,” and “intends to favor the public interest as against any private <br />interest” (among other presumptions). Minn. Stat. § 645.17. When there is room for ambiguity, <br />the Legislature’s intention can be ascertained by considering, among other things: <br />(1) The occasion and necessity for the law; (2) The circumstances under which it was <br />enacted; (3) The mischief to be remedied; (4) The object to be attained; (5) The former <br />law, if any, including other laws upon the same or similar subjects; (6) The consequences <br />of a particular interpretation; (7) The contemporaneous legislative history; and <br />(8) Legislative and administrative interpretations of the statute. <br />Id. Legislative history includes the “records of legislative hearings,” especially statements of bill <br />or amendment sponsors. Thorson v. Billy Graham Evangelistic Ass’n, 687 N.W.2d 652, 656-57 <br />(Minn. App. 2004) (citing Baker v. Ploetz, 616 N.W.2d 263, 269 (Minn. 2000)). <br />27-CV-16-9809 Filed in Fourth Judicial District Court <br />8/5/2016 8:53:55 AM <br />Hennepin County, MN