CC PACKET 10112016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

first refusal when the Park’s intended use changes “before” the sale. Subdivision 7 provides the right of first refusal when the Park’s intended use changes “after” the sale. In the present case, accepting the allegations of paragraphs 12, 13, and 14 of Plaintiff’s Complaint as true, the decision to convert the park took place before the sale. Thus, Plaintiffs’ right of first refusal was governed by subdivision 6. Subdivision 7 is not implicated because the decision to convert the Park’s use did not come after the sale. Logically, a decision to close or convert could only take place either before or after the sale of the park, not both. When subdivisions 6 and 7 are read together, their plain meaning makes clear that they are intended to separately cover two different situations: 1. Those situations where the intent to close or convert a park is expressed before the sale; and 2. Those situations where the decision to convert the park to a different use is made after the sale. This court does not read the statute to give Plaintiffs two, separate 45-day periods to attempt to purchase the Park. Subdivision 9 further clarifies that manufactured homeowners only have one chance at purchasing the Park prior to its closure or conversion. Subdivision 9 discusses the limitations of redress after a “manufactured home park is finally sold or converted to another use in violation of subdivision 6 or 7.” Id. The use of the disjunctive “or” makes clear only one subdivision applies, not both. Subdivision 9 would need to indicate Plaintiffs’ rights are terminated only after a violation of both subdivision 6 “and” 7 to allow Plaintiffs to now force the sale. A sale of the park pursuant to either one or the other subdivision forecloses Plaintiffs’ rights to purchase the property. Since a sale pursuant to subdivision 6 took place, Plaintiffs “do not have any continuing right to purchase the park.” Id. 40