While preparing my prior blog post, I became aware of Townridge Apts v. Silver Crest Partnership, 1997 WL 769489, File No. C6-97-1002 (Minn. Ct. App. 12/16/1997) (‘unpublished”). Although it is now 28 years old and nonprecedential, it is the only appellate case ruling on whether a successor in interest can seek punitive damages under Minn. Stat. §504B.178, subd. 7 (then Minn. Stat. §504.20, subd. 7) against its predecessor when the predecessor has not timely transferred security deposits. The Townridge court ruled against the successor but I think it was wrong. In this blog – in Word with links to citations and in PDF — I review the plain language of the statute as well as some important legislative history to show why a successor does have standing under Minn. Stat. §504B.178, subd. 7.
The detailed legislative history is available in Appendix LH 1992-376, which I prepared for the prior blog. This history illustrates how the legislature did not give successors rights under subdivision 4 of Minn. Stat. §504.20 but did under subdivision 7.
Appendix Townridge Full includes the briefs filed with the Court of Appeals along with the appellant’s appendix, which contains most of the district-court pleadings plus some out-of-court correspondence and information. The briefs, but not the appendix, are also available on the Minnesota State Law Library’s Online Archive.
Appendix SC includes some thoughts about the actual district court case that don’t involve the main theme of this essay.
Birnberg Minnesota Legislative Newsletter 