Mary Cocchiarella v. Donald Driggs, 884 N.W.2d 621 (2016)

Citation: Mary Cocchiarella v. Donald Driggs, 884 N.W.2d 621 (2016)
Parent Document: Mary Cocchiarella v. Donald Driggs, 884 N.W.2d 621 (2016)
Jurisdiction: Minnesota (state)
Effective Date: 2016-08-31
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4252990/mary-cocchiarella-v-donald-driggs/ ↗

Full Text

1,383 chars

The court’s decision also relies incorrectly on the common law meaning and the dictionary definition of “tenancy” to define “occupying.” Because the definition of a “residential tenant” is provided by statute, under section 504B.001, subdivision 12, we must look solely to that statutory definition to determine whether a residential “tenancy” exists for the purpose of applying the lockout statute, rather than turning to the common law of tenancies and landlord-tenant relationships or dictionary defi-' nitions. See State v, Schmid, 859 N.W.2d 816, 820 (Minn.2015) (“We do not turn to the common law definition of a word if the statute provides its own definition.”); State v. Koenig, 666 N.W.2d 366, 373 (Minn.2003) (“[U]nder a plain meaning analysis, we must éxamine the definition given by the statute for the term.... [W]e do not rely on [the dictionary] definition of [a word when] the statute provides a definition;”). It is not reasonable to ascribe a common law meaning or dictionary definition to a “residential tenancy ” when the Legislature has provided a statutory definition for’ a “residential tenant.”- Under the lockout' statute, a residential “tenancy” by a “residential tenant” is established, of course, only if the statutory definition of “residential tenant” is satisfied. Without a “residential tenant,” there can be no residential “tenancy,” and vice versa.

Other Sections in This Document (444)

Full Text