Legal Opinion · Dissent

Kmart Corp. v. County of Becker

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided February 28, 2002No. C6-01-826Published

1DissentPage, Justice

I respectfully dissent from the court’s decision to dismiss Kmart’s petition under the 60-Day Rule contained in Minn.Stat. § 278.05, subd. 6(a) (2000). The court accepts the county’s argument that, because Kmart failed to affirmatively state that the percentage rent clause in its lease did not apply, the county did not know and could not determine the amount of rent actually paid by Kmart. The county’s argument ignores the facts of this case. The lease furnished by Kmart did contain the amount of rent to be paid. In addition, it stated that this amount could be adjusted upward, but only if…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Kmart Corp. v. County of St. LouisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API