From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Amresco Residential M. Corp. v. Stange

Minnesota Court of Appeals
Jul 24, 2001
631 N.W.2d 444 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001)

Summary

holding that the district court did not err by dismissing counterclaims where appellants had "an equally valuable, alternate process available to them," because they could raise the counterclaims in a separate proceeding

Summary of this case from In re Burnette-Crawford

Opinion

No. C8-01-97

Filed July 24, 2001

Appeal from the District Court, Crow Wing County, David Tenyck, J., File No. C20084

Eric D. Cook, Leonard, O'Brien, Wilford, Spencer Gale, Ltd., (for respondent)

Michael C. Hager, Jane Larson Associates, (for appellants)

Considered and decided by Klaphake, Presiding Judge, Crippen, Judge, and Stoneburner, Judge.


OPINION


Appellants Duane and Angela Stange contend that the district court erred by rejecting their proposal to enlarge the nature and scope of the eviction proceeding to hear their claims that respondent AMRESCO Residential Mortgage Corporation was not entitled to possession of the property because of alleged defects in their underlying foreclosure. Because appellants have chosen the wrong forum to bring their claims, we affirm.

FACTS

In January 2000, after expiration of the statutory period for redeeming property, respondent AMRESCO Residential Mortgage Corporation initiated eviction proceedings in Crow Wing County District Court against appellants Duane and Angela Stange. In their answer, appellants counterclaimed and asserted affirmative defenses related to the underlying mortgage foreclosure. Appellants alleged that respondent was not entitled to possession of the property because it breached the mortgage contract by (a) refusing in bad faith to accept payment; (b) failing to give notice of default and acceleration; (c) preventing appellants from redeeming the property; and (d) failing to serve appellants with notice of the foreclosure sale.

In June 2000, the court dismissed without prejudice the counterclaims because it found that the claims exceeded the scope of summary eviction proceedings. In January 2001, on the date set for trial, the court entered summary judgment on its own motion in favor of respondent, but later granted appellants' motion to stay the writ of restitution.

ISSUE

Did the district court err in dismissing the counterclaims?

At oral argument, appellants stated there was only one issue on appeal, but they argued in their brief that the district court erred in granting summary judgment sua sponte. A court may, sua sponte, grant summary judgment if under the same circumstances it would grant a party's motion for summary judgment. Del Hayes Sons, Inc. v. Mitchell, 304 Minn. 275, 280, 230 N.W.2d 588, 591-92 (1975). To the extent appellants continue to contest this issue, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on its own motion.

ANALYSIS.

Numerous precedents establish the limited nature and scope of an eviction proceeding, which is summary in nature. E.g., Lilyerd v. Carlson, 499 N.W.2d 803, 812 (Minn. 1993); see also Minn. Stat. § 504B.001, subd 4 (2000) (defining eviction as "a summary court proceeding to remove a tenant or occupant from or otherwise recover possession of real property by the process of law set out in this chapter"). As appellants point out, the scope of the proceedings originated with the limited jurisdiction of municipal courts that once heard unlawful detainer proceedings but were not empowered to determine issues related to title. When municipal courts were abolished, this court surmised that district courts having jurisdiction in equity would be able to hear defenses and counterclaims in an eviction proceeding. Sternaman v. Hall, 411 N.W.2d 18, 19 n. 1 (Minn.App. 1987). In fact, the Minnesota Supreme Court has suggested in dicta that, even though these proceedings are usually summary in nature, a counterclaim involving title should have been heard in an eviction proceeding to avoid the problems that later arose in a separate title action. Lilyerd, 499 N.W.2d at 812.

Appellants contend that the court should acknowledge the outmoded nature and scope of the proceedings and enlarge the scope because the district courts, which now hear eviction cases, have general subject-matter jurisdiction. More specifically, appellants contend that when a party asserts a counterclaim in an eviction proceeding, the court should convert the action from an eviction action to an ejectment action, an argument appellants did not present to the district court.

Albright v. Henry, 285 Minn. 452, 459-60, 174 N.W.2d 106, 110 (1970) (construing the municipal-court statute and finding that municipal courts must transfer an unlawful detainer case to the district court when an equitable defense is asserted because the court has no jurisdiction to hear the equitable defense); Leader v. Joyce, 271 Minn. 9, 12, 135 N.W.2d 34, 37 (1965) (providing that an unlawful detainer action becomes an ejectment action when it is transferred from the municipal court to the district court).

Appellants do not dispute that they have an equally valuable, alternate process available to them. They have indicated, in fact, that subsequent to the dismissal of their counterclaims in this action, they commenced a separate proceeding in which they seek to set aside respondent's foreclosure. Appellants can raise their counterclaims and equitable defenses directly in that separate, district court proceeding, where they can also seek to enjoin prosecution of the eviction action. William Weisman Holding Co. v. Miller, 152 Minn. 330, 332, 188 N.W. 732, 733 (1922). Thus, there is no evident reason to interfere with the summary nature of eviction proceedings. Using the alternate procedure instead of expanding the eviction proceeding accords with the appellate courts' prior determinations that the district court should uphold the summary nature of eviction proceedings. E.g., Eagan East Ltd. P'ship v. Powers Investigations, Inc., 554 N.W.2d 621, 622 (Minn.App. 1996) (reversing decisions the court made on issues outside the limited scope of the proceeding). This process reinforces the public policy behind having summary proceedings, which is "to prevent parties from taking the law into their own hands." Mutual Trust Life Ins. Co. v. Berg, 187 Minn. 503, 505, 246 N.W. 9, 10 (1932). See generally Comment, Landlord-Tenant Law: Abolition of Self-Help in Minnesota, 63 Minn. L.Rev. 723 (1979).

We confine our decision to the title-related counterclaims and defenses presented by this appeal and affirm the district court's dismissal of those counterclaims. But we order that the court's stay of the writ of restitution be continued for a reasonable period of time in which appellants can assert, and the district court can determine in their pending proceeding, whether their right of possession should be protected by enjoining the writ until the court rules on their title claims.

DECISION

The district court properly dismissed the counterclaims.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Amresco Residential M. Corp. v. Stange

Minnesota Court of Appeals
Jul 24, 2001
631 N.W.2d 444 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001)

holding that the district court did not err by dismissing counterclaims where appellants had "an equally valuable, alternate process available to them," because they could raise the counterclaims in a separate proceeding

Summary of this case from In re Burnette-Crawford

holding that eviction proceedings "are summary in nature and the limited scope of these proceedings does not permit the adjudication of title claims"

Summary of this case from OWB REO, LLC v. Tyus

holding that because appellants had noneviction arenas in which to litigate noneviction claims, litigating those claims in an eviction proceeding was inappropriate

Summary of this case from Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Forseth

holding that eviction proceedings "are summary in nature and the limited scope of these proceedings does not permit the adjudication of title claims"

Summary of this case from United Prairie Bank v. Haugen Nutrition

ruling that, because tenants had non-eviction arenas in which to litigate non-eviction claims, litigating those claims in an eviction proceeding was inappropriate

Summary of this case from FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSO. v. SOLL

upholding a district court's dismissal of counterclaims that challenged the underlying foreclosure in an eviction proceeding

Summary of this case from AHR CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. DIXON

affirming dismissal of equitable counterclaims in a housing court action, but stating that the party could file a separate proceeding asserting those claims and seeking to enjoin the eviction action

Summary of this case from Brown v. Grant Holding, LLC

affirming the district court's rejection of appellants' "proposal to enlarge the nature and scope of the eviction proceeding to hear their claims that respondent . . . was not entitled to possession of the property because of alleged defects in their underlying foreclosure" based on the conclusion that "appellants . . . chose[] the wrong forum to bring their claims"

Summary of this case from Cuate v. Cuate-Dominguez

affirming dismissal of counterclaims "related to the underlying mortgage foreclosure" because appellants could "raise their counterclaims and equitable defenses directly in separate, district court proceeding" and, consequently, "there [was] no evident reason to interfere with the summary nature of eviction proceedings"

Summary of this case from Bank of Am., N.A. v. Smith

affirming dismissal of claims related to underlying foreclosure in eviction action because challenges to the validity of the mortgage or foreclosure process could be raised in a separate proceeding

Summary of this case from Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Briggs

affirming district court's dismissal of appellants' counterclaims in eviction proceeding, concluding that permitting appellants to assert counterclaims and equitable defenses would unnecessarily "interfere with the summary nature of eviction proceedings" because appellants could raise them in a separate proceeding

Summary of this case from Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Badrawi

rejecting an attack on the state's eviction procedure by explaining that defendants in eviction cases have “an equally valuable, alternate process available” for securing their rights, i.e. the filing of a separate lawsuit

Summary of this case from Olson Prop. Invs. v. Alexander

rejecting appellant's argument to enlarge the scope of eviction proceedings to adjudicate title claims

Summary of this case from Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Quale

rejecting appellant's argument to enlarge the scope of eviction proceedings to adjudicate title claims

Summary of this case from Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Mikelson

discussing that "the scope of the proceedings originated with the limited jurisdiction of municipal courts that once heard unlawful detainer proceedings but were not empowered to determine issues related to title" and that "a counterclaim involving title should have been heard in an eviction proceeding to avoid the problems that later arose in a separate title action"

Summary of this case from NY Props. v. Schuette

noting that an eviction action, formerly known as an unlawful-detainer action, is a summary proceeding

Summary of this case from Ellis v. Thompson

stating that the scope of an eviction proceeding is narrow

Summary of this case from Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Pope

reviewing an eviction order and affirming the district court's dismissal of defenses and counterclaims that challenged the mortgage foreclosure because the appellants had alternative procedures available to challenge the foreclosure and title to the property in dispute

Summary of this case from Great S. Bank v. Guzman

noting that an eviction action, formerly known as an unlawful-detainer action, is a summary proceeding

Summary of this case from HTA Gallery Med., LLC v. EyEs, Ltd.

In Amresco, this court noted "the limited nature and scope of an eviction proceeding" and upheld the dismissal of the title-based counterclaims, stating, "Appellants can raise their counterclaims and equitable defenses directly in [a] separate, district court proceeding[.

Summary of this case from Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Cordes

reviewing an eviction proceeding and upholding the district court's dismissal of defenses and counterclaims that challenged the underlying mortgage foreclosure because the appellants had alternative procedures available to challenge the foreclosure and title of the real property in dispute

Summary of this case from CitiMortgage, Inc. v. McGlory

In Amresco, this court determined that an occupier could not raise equitable counterclaims pertaining to breach of the mortgage contract in response to an eviction complaint.

Summary of this case from REDSTAR CAPITAL, LLC v. REX

noting that an eviction action, formerly known as an unlawful-detainer action, is a summary proceeding

Summary of this case from Beaumia v. Eisenbraun

In AMRESCO, this court declined to expand the summary nature of eviction proceedings and explained that the summary nature of the proceedings reinforced the public policy of preventing parties from taking matters into their own hands.

Summary of this case from AHR CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. DIXON

In AMRESCO, this court concluded that continuing the summary nature of these proceedings reinforces the public policy of preventing "parties from taking the law into their own hands."

Summary of this case from MM Home Builders v. Williams
Case details for

Amresco Residential M. Corp. v. Stange

Case Details

Full title:AMRESCO Residential Mortgage Corp., Respondent, vs. Duane A. Stange…

Court:Minnesota Court of Appeals

Date published: Jul 24, 2001

Citations

631 N.W.2d 444 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001)

Citing Cases

In Matter of Sundberg v. Sundberg

An eviction action is a proceeding with a limited scope and is summary in nature. Minn. Stat. § 504B.001,…

Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Forseth

This general prohibition on litigating noneviction matters in eviction proceedings applies specifically to…