Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 327C. MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 327C.12 (2026)

Retaliatory Conduct Prohibited

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

A park owner may not increase rent, decrease services, alter an existing rental agreement or seek to recover possession or threaten such action in whole or in part as a penalty for a resident's:

(1) good faith complaint to the park owner or to a government agency or official;

(2) good faith attempt to exercise rights or remedies pursuant to state or federal law; or

(3) joining and participating in the activities of a resident association as defined under section 327C.015, subdivision 15.

In any proceeding in which retaliatory conduct is alleged, the burden of proving otherwise shall be on the park owner if the owner's challenged action began within 90 days after the resident engaged in any of the activities identified in clause (1), (2), or (3). If the challenged action began more than 90 days after the resident engaged in the protected activity, the party claiming retaliation must make a prima facie case. The park owner must then prove otherwise.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1997–2010 · leading case: Skyline Vill. Park Ass'n v. Skyline Vill. L.P., 786 N.W.2d 304 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Skyline Vill. Park Ass'n v. Skyline Vill. L.P., 786 N.W.2d 304 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 327C.12 (2008). The distinction between “rules” and “rent” is carried forth in the provisions governing rental agreements, termination of rental agreements, and defenses to evictions.”
Rainbow Terrace, Inc. v. Hutchens, 557 N.W.2d 618 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “Appellants also argue that respondent’s institution of this action violates Minn.Stat. § 327C.12, which prohibits a park owner from seeking to recover possession of a lot where a resident makes a good faith attempt to exercise legal rights.”
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.