Court Opinion

ID: 9742460
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:14:13.734716+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:32.767422
License: Public Domain

*196PAGE, Justice
(dissenting).
While the district court did not make an explicit finding that Uniprop’s rules violated section 327C.13, in order for the district court to have amended Uniprop’s rule restricting noncommercial speech, it had to have found that Uniprop’s rule was in violation of the statute. Absent a statutory violation, the district court had no authority to modify the rule. In upholding the district court’s modification of the rule as a reasonable restriction on noncommercial speech, this court by necessity concludes that the rule adopted by Uniprop violated section 327C.13’s prohibition against unreasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on the right to free expression for noncommercial purposes. I agree with that implicit conclusion, but I do not agree with this court’s conclusion that the district court’s modifications to the rule cure that violation.
Minnesota Statutes § 327C.13 (2006) provides that:
No park owner shall prohibit or adopt any rule prohibiting residents or other persons from peacefully organizing, assembling, canvassing, leafletting or otherwise exercising within the park their right of free expression for noncommercial purposes. A park owner may adopt and enforce rules that set reasonable limits as to time, place and manner.
APAC argues that in enacting section 327C.13 the legislature intended First Amendment principles to apply in determining whether a manufactured park owner’s rule violates free expression. APAC further argues that, in applying First Amendment principles to the facts of this case, Uniprop’s restriction, even as modified by the district court, cannot stand. Uniprop argues that its rule does not violate the statute and that the legislature did not intend for First Amendment principles to apply when reviewing the reasonableness of a park rule. Although Uniprop does not press the argument here, at the district court, Uniprop argued that to apply First Amendment principles to determine whether its rule violates the statute would result in a constitutional violation.
Our review of a lower court’s construction of a statute is de novo. Olmanson v. LeSueur County, 693 N.W.2d 876, 879 (Minn.2005). “The object of all interpretation and construction of laws is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2006). “When the words of a law in their application to an existing situation are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit.” Id. However, when there is ambiguity we ascertain the legislature’s intent by considering the following factors:
(1) the occasion and necessity for the law;
(2) the circumstances under which it was enacted;
(3) the mischief to be remedied;
(4) the object to be attained;
(5) the former law, if any, including other laws upon the same or similar subjects;
(6) the consequences of a particular interpretation;
(7) the contemporaneous legislative history; and
(8) legislative and administrative interpretations of the statute.
MinmStat. § 645.16. In doing so, the statute’s words and phrases are to be “construed according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage; but technical words and phrases and such others as have acquired a special meaning * * * are construed according to such special meaning.” Minn.Stat. § 645.08 (2006). When the legislature *197uses terms of art that have “accumulated the legal tradition and meaning of centuries of practice, it presumably knows and adopts the cluster of ideas that were attached to each borrowed word in the body of learning from which it was taken and the meaning its use will convey to the judicial mind.” Morissette v. U.S., 342 U.S. 246, 263, 72 S.Ct. 240, 96 L.Ed. 288 (1952); see also Minn. & P.R. Co. v. Sibley, 2 Minn. 13, 19, 2 Gil. 1, 8 (Minn.1858) (“When terms of art or peculiar phrases are used, it must be supposed they are used in the sense as understood by persons familiar and acquainted with such terms.”).
In 1973, the legislature enacted an act regulating manufactured home lot rentals. Act of May 18, 1973, ch. 295, §§ 1-7, 1973 Minn. Laws 567-69 (codified at Minn.Stat. §§ 327.41-47 (1974)). Because of what it termed “major abuses of power,” the legislature amended chapter 327 in 1979. See Office of Sen. Gene Merriam, Memorandum re. S.F. No.1918, 1982 Minn. Leg., at 2. The legislature again amended chapter 327 in 1982 to address what Senator Gene Merriam, one of the sponsors of the senate bill, deemed “major problems.” Id.; see Act of March 22, 1982, ch. 526, 1982 Minn. Laws 938, 938-72. The 1982 amendments grew out of an interim study conducted by the House Subcommittee on Housing that included public hearings attended by more than 800 people, which produced more than 15 hours of public testimony. Office of Sen. Gene Merriam, Memorandum re. S.F. No.1918, 1982 Minn. Leg., at 3. The 1982 amendments reflect the concerns voiced by citizens at the public hearings. As background for amending chapter 327C, Senator Merriam noted:
The manufactured home park owner also has an unusual status. Not simply a private land owner or an ordinary landlord, the park owner has come to resemble a private government. Park rules control a wide spectrum of resident conduct, ranging from the length that grass may be allowed to grow, to whether a homemaker can earn some extra income by babysitting neighborhood children, to how many people can live in each private home. In short, a park owner is like an unelected mayor of a bedroom community.
Id. at 1.
Given the legislative history, it is clear that the occasion for the 1982 amendments to chapter 327C, including the enactment of section 327C.13, arose out of continuing legislative concerns about the imbalance of power between manufactured home park owners and park residents. It is also clear that the mischief the legislature sought to remedy was the abuse of power by manufactured home park owners and the object to be obtained was to rectify the imbalance between manufactured home park owners and park residents. Finally, it is clear from the legislative history that, in enacting section 327C.13 as a tool for rectifying that imbalance, the legislature intended to subject restrictions placed on speech by park owners to First Amendment principles. As an author of the amendments, Senator Merriam explained that the proposed amendments were in response to reports of abuses of power connected to this “form of private government.” Id. at 2. He further described manufactured home park owners as being akin to the “unelected mayor of a bedroom community.” Id. at 1. These references strongly suggest that in enacting section 327C.13 the legislature intended for the First Amendment to apply.1 That suggestion is *198buttressed by the language used in the statute.
It is no coincidence that, in placing limits on the rights of manufactured home park owners to interfere with the rights of park residents, the legislature used words, phrases, and concepts derived directly from First Amendment jurisprudence. The words, phrases, and concepts embodied in “free expression,” “noncommercial,” “peacefully organizing, assembling, canvassing, leafletting,” and “reasonable limits as to time, place and manner,” when used in reference to limitations on free expression, are all terms of art with special meaning under the First Amendment. Accordingly, I would hold that section 327C.13 extends the application of the First Amendment to manufactured home parks.
In my view, however, this case does not turn on whether we analyze the rule under the First Amendment. I conclude that the rule as modified is unreasonable and violates the statute no matter what standard we apply. As a preliminary matter, as I read the statute, the burden of proving the reasonableness of the restriction at issue in this case lies with Uniprop. “ ‘[T]he burden of proof generally rests on the one who seeks to show he is entitled to the benefits of a statutory provision.’ ” Rehn v. Fischley, 557 N.W.2d 328, 333 (Minn.1997) (quoting In re Application of City of White Bear Lake, 311 Minn. 146, 150, 247 N.W.2d 901, 904 (1976)). The ability to adopt and enforce rules that set reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on free expression is a benefit conferred by section 327C.13. Thus, in order to prevail, Uniprop has the burden of proving that its rule is reasonable.
Minnesota Statutes § 327C.01, subd. 8 (2006), defines what constitutes a reasonable rule under section 327C.13. Under subdivision 8, “reasonable rule” means a park rule that meets all four of the following requirements:
(a) it is designed to promote the convenience, safety, or welfare of the residents, promote the good appearance and facilitate the efficient operation of the park, protect and preserve the park premises, or make a fair distribution of services and facilities;
(b) it is reasonably related to the purpose for which it is adopted;
(c) it is not retaliatory or unjustifiably discriminatory in nature; and
(d) it fairly informs the resident of what to do or not to do to comply.
On the record presented, Uniprop’s rule fails this definition.
The problem here is that Uniprop has failed to meet its burden of showing that its rule is reasonably related to the purpose for which it was adopted. Uniprop *199asserts two reasons for adopting its rule limiting noncommercial speech: (1) to promote the residents’ peaceful enjoyment of their property; and (2) to further its interest in maintaining a safe neighborhood. There is no question that the reasons asserted by Uniprop are, in the abstract, of the type contemplated by the legislature in enacting section 327C.01, subdivision 8(a). However, there is no evidence in the record indicating that Ardmor Village residents lacked peaceful enjoyment of their property or that the park was unsafe as a result of canvassing or leafleting. Nor is there any evidence in the record suggesting that such canvassing or leafleting was a threat to residents’ peaceful enjoyment of their property or the safety of the park. Indeed, there is no evidence in the record explaining or demonstrating how limiting canvassing or leafleting promotes residents’ peaceful enjoyment or furthers public safety. Absent a showing of the problems to be remedied and how the restrictions imposed by Uniprop remedy those problems, it is impossible to say that the restrictions on free expression are reasonably related to the purpose for which they were adopted as required by Minn.Stat. § 327C.01, subd. 8(b).
Uniprop’s restrictions on noncommercial speech also fail as unreasonable under subdivision 8(c) because they are retaliatory in nature. At the time APAC began distributing information about its organizing efforts at Ardmor Village, the only rule limiting speech at Ardmor was contained in the village’s community covenants.2 That rule only restricted business activities by residents. ■ No covenant or other rule regulated the exercise of free expression within Ardmor Village. Therefore, when Ard-mor management had APAC removed from the park, it did so in violation of Ardmor’s own rules and regulations.3 After Ardmor management had APAC removed from the park, APAC obtained a temporary injunction enjoining Uniprop from denying it access to the park. In response to that injunction and APAC’s litigation, Uniprop amended the community covenants for Ardmor Village to limit noncommercial speech, as Manager McGaffey admitted:
[Question]: Now the new policy in fact was prompted by what happened with APAC, correct?
[Answer]: Correct.
[Question]: And this I think you — there are also other solicitors. I think from your depositions some Jehovah Witness people have been out to the park?
[Answer]: Correct.
[Question]: But the policy wasn’t changed because of the meat salesmen or the Jehovah Witnesses that were in the park, correct?
[Answer]: No, they did not prompt us to change our policy.
A rule adopted for the purpose of restricting the ability of an organization like APAC that provides information to manu*200factured home park residents about their rights as residents without any indication that the organization has interfered with the residents’ quiet enjoyment of their property, engaged in illegal or otherwise disruptive activities, or created an unsafe condition in the manufactured home park is retaliatory and per se unreasonable. The district court’s modifications to Uni-prop’s rule does not change that fact.
Further, Uniprop’s restrictions are unreasonable because they impede the ability of APAC and organizations like it to communicate with residents about their rights as residents in manufactured home parks. Such communications are the type of communication the legislature had in mind when it enacted chapter 327C’s free expression provisions. To allow the owner of a manufactured home park to adopt a rule specifically for the purpose of restricting the ability of park residents to receive information about their rights effectively frustrates the purposes of section 327C.13. Because Uniprop’s rule is contrary to the intent of the legislature and frustrates the purposes of section 327C.13, Uniprop’s rule, even as modified, cannot be allowed to stand.
Finally, the restrictions contained in Un-iprop’s rule violate residents’ rights under section 327C.13 because they close off the possibility of both anonymous and spontaneous speech. Under Uniprop’s rule, anyone seeking to engage in free expression involving canvassing or leafleting within the park must first present himself or herself to park management to view the no-contact list. Beyond stifling anonymity and spontaneity, Uniprop’s restrictions are stunning in their overbreadth. In cutting off anonymous and spontaneous speech, Uniprop’s rule restricts politicians seeking to go door-to-door to solicit votes, residents who would speak out in opposition to the actions of park management, a neighborhood association soliciting participation in a neighborhood watch group, and trick- or-treaters seeking to go door-to-door on Halloween in the same manner that it restricts APAC. This cannot be what the legislature had in mind when it enacted section 327C.13.
For all of the above reasons, I conclude that Uniprop’s rules, even as modified by the district court, are unreasonable and in violation of section 327C.13.
Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

. Although the First Amendment does not govern the right to free expression within a manufactured home park, the U.S. Supreme Court has expressly recognized that the state *198has the authority to exercise its police power or sovereign right to provide the right to free expression by way of its state constitution or by statutory provision. PruneYard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 81, 100 S.Ct. 2035, 64 L.Ed.2d 741 (1980). "It is, of course, well established that a State in the exercise of its police power may adopt reasonable restrictions on private property so long as the restrictions do not amount to a taking without just compensation or contravene any other federal constitutional provision.” Id. The Supreme Court concluded in PruneYard that a provision of the California Constitution providing the public with a right to engage in free expression at a privately owned shopping mall did not amount to a constitutional taking. Id. at 83, 100 S.Ct. 2035. Although the provision infringed on the mall owners' right to exclude, the provision did not amount to a constitutional taking because the exercise of free expression on mall property did not significantly diminish the property value and the property owners maintained the right to adopt time, place, and manner regulations that would minimize interference with commercial functions. Id.

. The list of prohibited conduct in the Ardmor Community Covenants includes the following: "Business Activities: Peddling, soliciting or conducting any commercial enterprise or profession, by a Resident anywhere within the Community is not permitted.”

. During trial, Ardmor Village Manager Mary McGaffey testified that when Ardmor management had APAC removed from the park it did so pursuant to a policy prohibiting door-to-door canvassing and leafleting. McGaffey further testified that the rule prohibiting canvassing and leafleting within the park applied in the same way to commercial and noncommercial purposes. There is no evidence in the record to support McGaffey's testimony that, at the time APAC was first removed from Ardmor Village, Ardmor had a rule in place prohibiting noncommercial soliciting or canvassing.