CC PACKET 10112016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Plaintiffs ask this Court to consider the legislative intent of the statute, as a remedial statute, and interpret it in favor of manufactured homeowners. It is not necessary to look at additional interpretive tools like the legislative intent when the statute’s language is plain on its face. State v. Rick, 835 N.W.2d 478, 482 (Minn. 2013) (“If the Legislature's intent is clear from the statute's plain and unambiguous language, then we interpret the statute according to its plain meaning without resorting to the canons of statutory construction.”). This Court need not consider the legislative intent because the language of the statute is unambiguous and clear. This case is distinguishable from the cases on which Plaintiffs rely. First, both cases cited by Plaintiff involve an agricultural landowner’s right of first refusal under Minn. Stat. §500.24, in the context of the foreclosure process, and were decided on facts significantly different from the present case. See, Harbal v. Federal Land Bank, 449 N.W.2d 442, (Minn. Ct. App. 1989); Ag. Services of America, Inc. v. Schroeder, 693 N.W.2d 227 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). Fundamentally, Chapter 500 does not contain a provision analogous to §327C.095, subd. 9, which limits post-sale remedies to a claim for monetary damages. The contrary is true of Chapter 500, which by amendment in 1993, expressly permits an action for recovery of title, and arguably leaves open a court’s option to fashion equitable relief. Subdivision 9 expressly precludes relief other than monetary damages. Moreover, both cases cited by plaintiffs stemmed from a complete lack of notice given to the grieved farm owners, resulting in the farm owners having no opportunity to exercise their rights. Finally, in both cases cited by Plaintiffs suit was commenced before title had passed to the buyer, which is markedly different from the facts presented here. This court is not persuaded that either Harbal or Ag. Services provides any authority for finding that the language of §327C.095 is ambiguous. 41