A tenant who enters a lease agreement gains the right to possess a landlord’s property. Accordingly, a landlord unlawfully excludes a tenant if, in bad faith, the landlord prohibits the tenant from maintaining or recovering possession of the property. In Minnesota, a tenant who is unlawfully excluded has remedies against a landlord, including damages for ouster. Additionally, “residential tenants” who are “occupying” the premises may bring a petition against the landlord to recover possession of the leased property.
In Cocchiarella v. Driggs, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that in the context of a landlord-tenant relationship, the phrase “is occupying” encompasses the present legal right of occupancy. The Cocchiarella decision overturned the lower courts’ determinations that a tenant under a lease who had not yet received a key to a rental property, nor ever physically possessed the premises, could not bring a claim for unlawful exclusion under Minnesota Statute section 504B.375.
This case note begins with a history of the case law and statutory guidelines involved in Cocchiarella. This note continues by discussing the facts and procedural history of Cocchiarella, followed by a summary of the majority and dissenting opinions. Next, this note argues that Cocchiarella’s holding conflicts with section 504B.375’s plain meaning, the legislature’s intent, and the statute’s underlying policy concerns. Finally, this note concludes that the Minnesota Supreme Court erred in ruling that a tenant without physical possession but who holds a present legal right under a lease is a “residential tenant” with the right to bring an unlawful exclusion petition under section 504B.375.