§ 504B

Citation: § 504B
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

1,030 chars

2
       Amicus curiae Minnesota Multi Housing Association (MMHA) and the dissent
argue that interpreting “occupying” to include the legal right of occupancy renders the
subsequent phrase “under a lease or contract” redundant. We disagree. The phrase “under
a lease or contract” specifies the basis by which a “residential tenant” holds the present
occupancy rights to the residential rental property. For example, a tenant who is physically
occupying the premises but not under a lease or contract, such as an adverse possessor, is
not a “residential tenant” under the statute. Likewise, a tenant who has a lease or contract
with an effective date in the future does not have a present right to legally or physically
occupy the premises, and therefore is not a residential tenant under the statute. As
discussed above, this specification is consonant with the creation of a tenancy at common
law.
                                              9
(Am. Law Inst. 1977); see Gates v. Herberger, 202 Minn. 610, 612, 279 N.W. 711, 712

Other Sections in This Document (444)

Full Text