Laserfiche WebLink
14 <br /> <br />the issue by “ma[king] it clear that should a park be sold contrary to subdivision 6 or 7 that the <br />only remedy that the residents in the park have is to sue under a violation of this law for <br />something besides ownership of the land.” (Id.) Rep. Dawkins, upon questioning, was clear that <br />this limitation was meant to protect future buyers of all types of property from generalized title <br />uncertainty and was not to immunize buyers complicit in a violation from liability. (Id. at 22-23.) <br />II. THIS CASE INVOLVES CONCERTED VIOLATIONS OF § 327C.095 THAT SHOULD BE <br />ENJOINED TO PREVENT THIS AND FUTURE PARK CLOSURES. <br />This case involves several actions by Defendants to undermine, circumvent, and violate <br />§ 327C.095. If Defendants are able to structure and execute park sales and closures in this <br />manner, Lowry Grove will close, Minnesota will lose yet another manufactured home park (the <br />11th since 1991), and affordable housing will continue its decline in the Metro Area. <br />A. Park Owners and Developers Should Not Be Permitted to Withhold or Conceal <br />From Park Residents Key Terms and Buyer Conditions Afforded the Developer. <br />Subdivision 6 provides that residents are entitled to “information on the cash price and <br />the terms and conditions of the purchaser’s offer” upon request. This is to allow for the “right to <br />meet the cash price and execute an agreement” on “the same terms and conditions set forth in the <br />purchaser’s offer.” This plain language required Defendants to afford “the same terms and <br />conditions” to park residents as they did to Continental. Indeed, the specific inclusion of the <br />word “conditions” confirms that residents were entitled to all purchasing contingencies within <br />Continental’s offer. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 354-55 (10th ed. 2014) (defining “condition” as <br />“[a] future and uncertain event on which the existence or extent of an obligation or liability <br />depends; an uncertain act or vent that triggers or negates a duty to render a promised <br />performance” and citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 224 cmt. (a) (1981)). <br />27-CV-16-9809 Filed in Fourth Judicial District Court <br />8/5/2016 8:53:55 AM <br />Hennepin County, MN