Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 435.193 (2026)

Hardship Assessment Deferral For Seniors, Disabled, Or Military Persons

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the contrary, any county, statutory or home rule charter city, or town, making a special assessment may, at its discretion, defer the payment of that assessment for any homestead property:

(1) owned by a person 65 years of age or older or retired by virtue of a permanent and total disability for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments; or

(2) owned by a person who is a member of the Minnesota National Guard or other military reserves who is ordered into active military service, as defined in section 190.05, subdivision 5b or 5c, as stated in the person's military orders, for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments.

(b) Any county, statutory or home rule charter city, or town electing to defer special assessments shall adopt an ordinance or resolution establishing standards and guidelines for determining the existence of a hardship and for determining the existence of a disability, but nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the determination of hardship on the basis of exceptional and unusual circumstances not covered by the standards and guidelines where the determination is made in a nondiscriminatory manner and does not give the applicant an unreasonable preference or advantage over other applicants.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1984–2015 · leading case: DRB 24, LLC v. City of Minneapolis, 976 F. Supp. 2d 1079 (D. Minnesota 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

DRB 24, LLC v. City of Minneapolis, 976 F. Supp. 2d 1079 (D. Minnesota 2013). · cites it 5× “The notice shall also inform the owner of the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Sections 435.193 to 435.195 and of the existence of any deferment procedure.”

Habel v. City of Chisago City, 346 N.W.2d 668 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 5× “Was the notice sent by the City defective for failing to inform appellants of the provisions of Minn.Stat. §§ 435.193 and 435.195 (1982)? ANALYSIS This is the second case involving an appeal of the assessments adopted by Chisago City on October 5, 1982.”

Shortridge v. Daubney, 400 N.W.2d 841 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “061, which provides in pertinent part: The notice shall inform property owners of the provisions of sections 435.193 to 435.195 and the existence of any deferment procedure established pursuant thereto in the municipality.”

Ruberto v. Cnty. of Washington, 572 N.W.2d 293 (Minn. 1997). “The notice shall also inform property owners of the provisions of sections 435.193 to 435.195 and the existence of any deferment procedure established pursuant thereto in the municipality.”

Michele Sykes v. Rochester City Council, City of Rochester (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 13× “” Minn. Stat. § 435.193 (a)(1). Admittedly, strict compliance with the statutory notice provisions is required.”

— Minn. Stat. § 435.193(a) — 1 case

Michele Sykes v. Rochester City Council, City of Rochester (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). “” Minn. Stat. § 435.193 (a)(1). Admittedly, strict compliance with the statutory notice provisions is required.”

— Minn. Stat. § 435.193(b) — 1 case

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.