Opinion
A24-0087
08-21-2024
Brooklyn Center AH II LLLP, Respondent, v. Anderson Price, Appellant, John Doe, et al., Defendants.
Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CV-HC-23-5627
Considered and decided by Larson, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Reilly Judge. [*]
ORDER OPINION
Elise L. Larson Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In this eviction action, appellant Anderson Price challenges the district court's decision to affirm an earlier order conditioning trial on Price depositing his undisputed unpaid rent into an escrow account. We affirm.
2. On July 24, 2023, respondent Brooklyn Center AH II LLLP (hereinafter landlord) brought an eviction action against Price under Minn. Stat. § 504B.291 (2022 & Supp. 2023). The complaint alleged that Price failed to pay rent starting in March 2023 and owed $5,260.88 in arrears. Landlord sought a writ of recovery of premises under Minn. Stat. § 504B.345, subd. 1(a) (Supp. 2023).
We note that, in 2023, the legislature amended multiple statutes that we cite under chapter 504B. See 2023 Minn. Laws ch. 52, art. 19, §§ 104, at 1180-81; 108-109, at 1185-86. However, the legislature's amendments do not impact the resolution of this case. Therefore, we cite the most recent version of the applicable statutes. See Interstate Power Co. v. Nobles Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 617 N.W.2d 566, 575 (Minn. 2000) (stating that, generally, "appellate courts apply the law as it exists at the time they rule on a case").
3. On August 10, 2023, a referee held an initial hearing. There, Price informed the referee that his monthly rent was $986, he paid rent through February 2023, per an agreement with landlord he did not owe any rent for March 2023, and he had withheld rent since April 2023. Price explained that he withheld rent because landlord had a "predatory payment system" and would not remove fraudulent charges from his rental balance.
4. On the same day, the referee recommended, and the district court adopted, a scheduling order that set trial for September 15, 2023. The scheduling order required Price to place $4,930 in escrow-the value of Price's April through August unpaid rent-along with the value of each future month's rent on the third business day of each month. The scheduling order explicitly provided that a writ of recovery would issue, and Price would be ordered to vacate the premises, if he failed to put the money in escrow.
5. On August 18, 2023, Price filed a notice of review, challenging the scheduling order's requirement that he deposit undisputed unpaid rent in escrow. See Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 611(a) ("[A] party not in default may seek review by a judge of a decision . . . recommended by the referee by serving and filing notice of review"). While the notice of review was pending, Price failed to deposit any money in escrow. The district court then canceled the trial and deemed landlord "entitled to judgment for recovery of the premises with allowable costs and disbursements." The district court temporarily stayed execution of that order pending resolution of the notice of review. See Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 611(b) ("In civil cases, filing and service of a notice of review does not stay entry of judgment nor vacate a judgment if already entered unless the petitioner requests and the referee orders a bond, payment(s) in lieu of a bond, or waiver of bond and payments(s)."). After a hearing, the district court ordered Price to post a $3,451 bond to continue the stay, and to further deposit $986 by the fifth business day of each subsequent month. When Price failed to post the bond, the district court lifted the stay, and upon landlord's request, issued a writ of recovery, which was executed on October 18, 2023. On January 16, 2024, the district court affirmed the scheduling order.
6. Price appeals the district court's decision to affirm the scheduling order. Price argues the district court erred when it affirmed the scheduling order because landlord engaged in fraud and did not provide statutorily required notice under Minn. Stat. § 504B.181 (2022).
7. In eviction actions, typically "the only issue for determination is whether the facts alleged in the complaint are true," and the "standard of review is whether the district court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous." Cimarron Village v. Washington, 659 N.W.2d 811, 817 (Minn.App. 2003). Legal questions remain subject to de novo review. See Cent. Hous. Assocs., LP v. Olson, 929 N.W.2d 398, 402 (Minn. 2019). For "mixed questions of fact and law, we correct erroneous applications of law but defer to the district court's ultimate conclusions, which we review for abuse of discretion." NY Props., LLC v. Schuette, 977 N.W.2d 862, 865 (Minn.App. 2022).
8. Under Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 608:
In any eviction action case where a tenant withholds rent in reliance on a defense, the defendant shall deposit forthwith into court an amount in cash, money order or certified check payable to the District Court equal to the rent due as the same accrues or such other amount as determined by the court to be appropriate as security for the plaintiff, given the circumstances of the case.
In nonprecedential decisions relying on rule 608, we have concluded that a district court did not abuse its discretion when it canceled trial after a tenant failed to deposit undisputed unpaid rent in escrow after the tenant withheld rent in reliance on a defense. See, e.g., Pioneer Apartments LLLP v. Shannon, No. A23-0138, 2023 WL 6543255, at *3-4 (Minn.App. Oct. 9, 2023); HTA Gallery Med., LLC v. EyEs, Ltd., No. A13-1557, 2014 WL 997048, at *1 (Minn.App. Mar. 17, 2014).
These cases are nonprecedential and, therefore, not binding. We cite nonprecedential cases for persuasive authority only. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).
9. We similarly conclude in this case that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it required Price to place his undisputed unpaid rent in escrow. At the initial hearing, Price admitted that he withheld rent based on his defense that landlord had a "predatory payment system" and landlord would not remove fraudulent charges from his rental balance. Rule 608 authorized the district court to order Price to deposit his unpaid rent in escrow. Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 608 (applying "where a tenant withholds rent in reliance on a defense"). Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it affirmed the scheduling order that required Price to comply with rule 608.
10. Price disagrees, arguing that because he presented documentation showing landlord engaged in fraud during the notice of review process, the district court erred when it affirmed the scheduling order. He asserts that this evidence created a rebuttable presumption that he paid rent pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 504B.291, subd. 1. But section 504B.291, subdivision 1, requires a tenant to produce evidence showing that they paid rent to the landlord on dates "approximately corresponding with the date rent was due." The record does not contain any evidence showing that Price presented such documentation.
11. Price also relies on Minn. Stat. § 504B.335(e) (Supp. 2023) to challenge the scheduling order. But the legislature passed section 504B.335(e) during the 2023 legislative session, and the provision only governs actions a landlord files on or after January 1, 2024. See 2023 Minn. Laws ch. 52, art. 19, §§ 107, at 1185; 116, at 1187. Here, landlord filed the complaint in July 2023, and, therefore, section 504B.335(e) does not apply.
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.
BY THE COURT
[*] Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.