Laserfiche WebLink
As discussed above, the language of section §327C.095 is clear and plain. Plaintiffs have <br />a right to match and purchase a manufactured home park either before or after its sale, but not <br />both. Minn. Stat. § 327C.095, subds. 6, 7. If Defendants violate the statute, Plaintiffs lose their <br />ability to purchase the property, however, they retain the ability to sue civil for damages. Id. at <br />subd. 9. Since there is no ambiguity, the Court need not to look at the legislative intent. <br />Even if the statute was ambiguous and the Court needed to consider the legislative intent, <br />it is evident that the statute was enacted only after balancing competing priorities: giving <br />manufactured homeowners a tool to protect their homes while not overly interfering with park <br />owner’s ability to sell their property. At a committee hearing on drafting section 327C.095 <br />Representative Dawkins, addressed concerns over the marketability of title, and the ability of <br />property owners to sell their parks by introducing an amendment, which eventually became <br />subdivision 9, that “make[s] it clear that should a park be sold contrary to subdivision 6 or 7 that <br />the 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.”3 <br />C. Plaintiffs’ Due Process Rights are not violated. <br /> <br />Plaintiffs’ final argument is that Minn. Stat. § 327C.095 violates Plaintiffs’ due process <br />rights. The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that no state shall <br />“deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The inquiry for the <br />Court is (1) whether Plaintiffs were deprived of a protected interest, and (2) if so, what process <br />was due. Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 428 (1982). <br />Plaintiffs argue Minnesota Statute § 327C.095, subd. 9 and 11 deprive them of a cause of <br />action to enforce the sale of the property. According to Plaintiffs, LGP rejected Aeon’s purchase <br />3 Dec. of Adam Welle, Ex. 1, at 14, Aug. 5, 2016. <br />42