This essay is a three-part commentary about Quinn v. LMC NE Minneapolis Holdings, LLC, 972 N.W.2d 881 (Minn. Ct. App. 2022), rev. granted (June 29, 2022), rev. dismissed (Feb. 17, 2023).
Kera Quinn was a long-time roommate of Janice Smith in an apartment managed by LMC. Smith was the only leaseholder. When the lease ended, Smith vacated but Quinn did not. LMC locked out Quinn, who then brought an anti-lockout petition under Minn. Stat. § 504B.375. The trial court ruled that Quinn was an “other regular occupant” under Minn. Stat. § 504B.001 and therefore could not be ousted without a court order; it ordered LMC to reverse the lockout by giving her the needed key. LMC appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court.
Part 1
This precedential opinion construed the phrase “other regular occupants” in Minn. Stat. § 504B.001 as it applies to a lockout petition brought under Minn. Stat. § 504B.375.
The court’s analysis was based on dictionary definitions of “regular” and on a 1946 hotel-guest-versus-boarder case. In Part 1 of this essay, I analyze the same issue by reviewing the history of the 1970s session laws underlying section 504B.375. I do so because section 504B.375 derives from Minn. Stat. § 566.175, which was first enacted in 1975. This history provides a different reason to reach the same result as the court’s.
Part 2
In Part 2, I review the supreme court’s decision to dismiss the case as moot after first accepting review of the court of appeals’ decision. I conclude that this decision seems odd (even though I think the decision by the court of appeals was correct).
Part 3
In Part 3, I discuss some of the practical implications of this case for landlords and invitees. I also conclude that the case’s construction of “residential tenant” and “other regular occupant” is not inconsistent with the other statutes in Minn. Stat. Chap. 504B.
The essay is available in PDF and in Word. The Word version has links to cited materials.
Birnberg Minnesota Legislative Newsletter 