In 1977 the Minnesota legislature added a statutory penalty (in slang, the “doubling penalty”) which the tenant can claim against her landlord if the landlord misses the deadline to return or account for her security deposit. 1977 Minn. Laws c 280 s 3. The time the claim vested was clear – when the landlord missed the return deadline.
Subsequently, the legislature added two other landlord failures subject to the doubling penalty. In 1992 it added failure by a predecessor to transfer the deposits to the successor or to the tenants following a change ownership/interest in the property. 1992 Minn. Laws ch 376 art 1 s 6, clause (3), now codified at Minn. Stat. §504B.178, subd. 4(3). In 2023 it added failure to do either an initial joint walkthrough or a final joint walkthrough. 2023 Minn. Laws ch 52 art 19 s 85, now codified at Minn. Stat. §504B.178, subd. 4(4).
As discussed in this essay in Word (with links to cited materials) and also available in PDF, the 1992 and 2023 amendments were not models of clarity. Both resulted in ambiguities about when the tenant’s right to sue vests. The tenant has to provide her mailing address or delivery instructions but how soon after that she can sue is unclear.
The discussion of the 1992 session law includes a review of the 1991-1992 legislative history. The review is based on Appendix LH 1992-376, an extensive collection of applicable committee records, bills as introduced, pages from the House and Senate Journals, and three transcripts of committee testimony. This legislative history does not resolve the ambiguity in the 1992 law but does provide a fascinating insight into the forces involved; surprisingly, the main advocates for the bill were not tenant lobbyists but instead lobbyists for successors in interest.
The discussion of the 2023 session law includes a review of the 2023 legislative history. This history is rather sparse and sheds only a little light on the ambiguity. Included is Appendix Sakhardande, a transcript of committee testimony that is not very important but is provided nonetheless.
Appendix Townridge includes the briefs plus an appendix with the trial-court order in Townridge Apts v. Silver Crest Partnership, an appellate court case construing part of the 1992 law.
This blog post proves I have a lot of time on my hands in retirement. The legal analysis aside, I hope my work on the legislative history gives practitioners a head start if they litigate Minn. Stat. § 504B.178, subd. 4(3) or (4).
Birnberg Minnesota Legislative Newsletter 