Laserfiche WebLink
FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1 <br />For the purposes of Defendants’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings only, the <br />Court accepts all of the facts alleged in the Complaint to be true. This action stems from the sale <br />of Lowry Park mobile home park (“the Park”) to the Village, LLC (“the Village”).2 <br />The Complaint alleges that on April 26, 2016, as part of the requirements set forth by Minn. <br />Stat. § 327C.095, the owner of the Park, Lowry Grove Partnership (“LGP”), gave notice to the <br />residents of the Park of the sale and intent of the Village to close the Park within one year of <br />executing a purchase agreement. The notice advised the residents that owners of at least 51 percent <br />of the manufactured homes could exercise their right of first refusal to purchase the property and <br />continue it as a manufactured home park within 45 days. The 45-day notice period was set to <br />expire on June 10, 2016. The Complaint asserts that on April 27, 2016, LGP and the Village <br />entered into a purchase agreement for the sale of the Park that included language about the right <br />of first refusal. The purchase agreement also included a $1 million earnest money payment. <br />The Complaint further alleges that owners of more than 51 percent of the manufactured <br />homes in the Park authorized Aeon to exercise their right of first refusal to purchase the Park. On <br />June 10, 2016, Aeon delivered a purchase agreement and a check for $70,000 to LGP. Also <br />included in the purchase agreement package were signatures of owners of the manufactured homes <br />in the Park. Initially, two pages of signatures were omitted but were subsequently provided to <br />Defendants after they closed on the sale. The Complaint asserts that Aeon’s purchase agreement <br />was “materially identical” to the Village’s, except that the closing date would not be until as late <br />1 The factual recitation taken from the Complaint is used for the purposes of the motion for <br />partial judgment on the pleadings, but not the summary judgment motion. <br />2 The original purchaser was, in fact, Continental Property Group. However, the Village is the <br />assignee of Continental’s rights under the purchase agreement. <br />33