Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 327C.05 (2026)

Rules

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Unreasonable rules prohibited.

No park owner shall adopt or enforce unreasonable rules. No park owner may engage in a course of conduct which is unreasonable in light of the criteria set forth in section 327C.015, subdivision 12.

Subd. 2.Presumptively unreasonable rules.

In any action in which the reasonableness of a rule is challenged, any rule which violates any provision of Laws 1982, chapter 526, article 2, or of any other law shall be deemed unreasonable, and the following rules shall be presumed unreasonable unless the park owner proves their reasonableness by clear and convincing evidence:

(1) any rule which prohibits the placing of a "for sale" sign on a resident's home by the resident;

(2) any rule which requires a resident or prospective resident to purchase any particular goods or services from a particular vendor or vendors, including the park owner;

(3) any rule which requires a resident to use the services of a particular dealer or broker in an in park sale; and

(4) any rule requiring that more than one occupant of a home have an ownership interest in that home.

Subd. 3.Other unreasonable rules.

In addition to the rules listed in subdivision 2, a court may declare unreasonable any park rule if the court finds that the rule fails to meet the standard of section 327C.015, subdivision 12. The absence of a rule from the list contained in subdivision 2 is not evidence or proof of the rule's reasonableness.

Subd. 4.Density restrictions.

Subject to section 327C.02, subdivision 2, a park owner may adopt and enforce a reasonable rule that places limits on the maximum number of persons permitted to reside in a manufactured home if the limitation is reasonably related to the size of the home and the number of rooms it contains.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1984–2010 · leading case: Skyline Vill. Park Ass'n v. Skyline Vill. L.P., 786 N.W.2d 304 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010).
Skyline Vill. Park Ass'n v. Skyline Vill. L.P., 786 N.W.2d 304 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 21× “11 (2008); and (3) the prohibition under Minn.Stat. § 327C.05, subd. 1, against a manufactured-home-park owner’s course of conduct that is unreasonable does not apply to rent increases.”
All Parks All. for Change v. Uniprop Manufactured Hous. Communities Income Fund, 732 N.W.2d 189 (Minn. 2007). · cites it 4× “Section 327C.05, subd. 3 (2006), allows a court to declare unreasonable any park rule "if the court finds that the rule fails to meet the standard of section 327C.”
Lea v. Pieper, 345 N.W.2d 267 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “A rule requiring more than one occupant of a mobile home to have an ownership interest in that home is presumed unreasonable under Minn.Stat. § 327C.05, subd. 2(d) (1982), and the rule is invalid unless shown to be reasonable by clear and convincing evidence as required by that…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.