Mary Cocchiarella v. Donald Driggs
2015 Minn. App. LEXIS 70
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Mary Cocchiarella alleged an oral agreement to rent Unit 3 from defendant Donald Driggs, paid $2,400 (security + first month) and attempted to move in but was prevented from taking possession.
- Cocchiarella filed a lockout petition under Minn. Stat. §504B.375 seeking possession and damages (also pleaded damages under §504B.231).
- Housing-court referee recommended dismissal, reasoning Cocchiarella was not a “residential tenant” because she never occupied the unit; district court adopted that recommendation and dismissed the petition for possession.
- The district court did not address Cocchiarella’s damages claim under §504B.231 in its dismissal order.
- Funds (initially $2,400 from Driggs; later another $2,400 from Cocchiarella) were deposited with the court administrator; the final district-court order incorrectly found those funds had been disbursed to Cocchiarella.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §504B.375 requires actual occupancy to be a “residential tenant” | Cocchiarella: her oral lease and right to possess make her a tenant even without occupying | Driggs: statutory definition requires occupying the dwelling | Held: Actual occupancy is required; dismissal of possession claim affirmed |
| Whether the court erred by failing to resolve damages under §504B.231 | Cocchiarella: she pleaded damages and the referee/district court failed to address that claim | Driggs: did not argue damages depended on possession claim on appeal | Held: District court erred by not addressing §504B.231 claim; case remanded for resolution |
| Whether the court correctly found court-administered funds were disbursed to plaintiff | Cocchiarella: requested stay of disbursement and the record does not show funds were paid out | Driggs: (no successful showing that funds were disbursed) | Held: Finding that funds were disbursed is unsupported; district court must confirm and correct order on remand |
| Denial of motion to strike portions of defendant’s memorandum | Cocchiarella: memorandum referenced facts not in housing-court record | Driggs: relied on submitted memo; district court denied strike | Held: Denial not reversible error because district court did not rely on extra-record facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Bass v. Equity Residential Holdings, LLC, 849 N.W.2d 87 (Minn. App. 2014) (describing a §504B.375 lockout petition)
- Swanson v. Brewster, 784 N.W.2d 264 (Minn. 2010) (statutory-interpretation principles)
- Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud, 853 N.W.2d 713 (Minn. 2014) (apply statute according to plain meaning)
- Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc., 777 N.W.2d 755 (Minn. 2010) (de novo review of statutory interpretation)
- State v. Schmid, 859 N.W.2d 816 (Minn. 2015) (use statutory definition over common law when statute defines a term)
- American Family Ins. Grp. v. Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d 273 (Minn. 2000) (statutes should be read as a whole)
- Gassler v. State, 787 N.W.2d 575 (Minn. 2010) (use common usage to determine plain meaning of statutory words)
- In re Phillips’ Trust, 90 N.W.2d 522 (Minn. 1958) (dictionary/common-meaning can inform statutory language interpretation)