Opinion
A23-0490
10-10-2023
Marthamae Kottschade, Appellant, v. Richard A. Mokua, et al., Respondents, Cozzyville LLC, Respondent.
Olmsted County District Court File No. 55-CV-22-3093
Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Schmidt, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Jon Schmidt Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In this second appeal arising from a landlord-tenant dispute, appellant Marthamae Kottschade challenges the district court's summary-judgment dismissal of her claims against respondents Richard Mokua and Cozzyville LLC based on res judicata and collateral estoppel.
2. This court detailed the underlying facts of this case in the first appeal. See Kottschade v. Mokua, No. A22-0530, 2023 WL 1097854 (Minn.App. Jan. 30, 2023).
3. In the first lawsuit, Kottschade filed a verified petition for possession of residential rental property, known as a "lockout" petition, following an alleged unlawful removal under Minnesota Statutes section 504B.375 (2022). Id. at *2. The Mokuas counterclaimed for eviction, and following a bench trial, the district court granted the Mokuas' request for recovery of the premises. Id. Kottschade appealed. Id.
4. In the first appeal, we affirmed because Kottschade failed to establish prejudicial error. Id. at *2-3. We determined that the district court did not err by considering whether Kottschade could recover treble damages and that Kottschade failed to establish that the district court erred by prohibiting her from returning to the apartment. Id. Kottschade did not file a petition for further review.
5. While the first appeal was pending, Kottschade filed a second complaint against the same respondents, raising substantively similar causes of action. Respondents moved for summary judgment, arguing that res judicata or collateral estoppel barred Kottschade's claims.
6. The district court granted respondents' motion for summary judgment. In a very thorough order, the district court determined that each of Kottschade's five claims was barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel. The district court concluded, in relevant part, that the claims could have been brought in her original complaint or in an amended complaint, and that the claims had been previously litigated. Kottschade appealed.
7. Appellate courts review the grant of summary judgment de novo to determine whether the district court properly applied the law and whether there are genuine issues of material fact. Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., 898 N.W.2d 623, 628 (Minn. 2017). Summary judgment is proper if, based on the record, the moving party shows that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.01. When the doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes relitigation of an issue, there is no issue of material fact, and summary judgment is proper. Ryan v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 414 N.W.2d 470, 472 (Minn. App.1987), rev. denied (Minn. Jan. 15, 1988).
8. Kottschade argues that the district court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of respondents based on res judicata and collateral estoppel.
9. We discern no error in the district court's application of these preclusion doctrines. In its well-reasoned order, the district court explained how each of Kottschade's claims was addressed by the district court in the prior case and by this court in the first appeal.
10. Kottschade also argues that the district court erred by issuing a writ of recovery of the premises after she notified the district court that she intended to appeal. Kottschade contends Minnesota Statutes section 504B.371 (2022) creates an "automatic" stay when an appeal is pending.
11. The statute provides the grounds and procedure for a tenant to obtain a stay pending appeal in an eviction action. Minn. Stat. § 504B.371, subds. 1, 3-5. Specifically, a tenant must "give a bond" before a stay becomes effective. Id.
12. Appellant's counsel acknowledged during oral argument that Kottschade did not provide a bond to secure a stay pending the first appeal. Without a bond, there was no stay in effect and the district court did not err in issuing a writ of recovery of the premises.
13. Moreover, we specifically determined in the previous opinion that appellant's writ of recovery arguments were moot given that this court affirmed the judgment for recovery of the premises. Kottschade, 2023 WL 1097854, at *5. We further noted the fact-which the district court recognized in the summary judgment order in the instant case-that the appropriate way to seek review of a district court's decision on a stay pending appeal is by filing a motion in this court under rule 127 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure. Id. But because this court resolved the first appeal, there was no relief this court could grant for Kottschade's request for a stay pending appeal. Id.
14. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of respondents.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.