Opinion
A23-1387
02-27-2024
Clay County HRA, Respondent, v. Sandra D. Brandt and all others in possession, Appellant.
Clay County District Court File No. 14-CV-23-2639
Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Larson, Judge; and Florey, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
ELISE L. LARSON, JUDGE
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant Sandra D. Brandt challenges the district court's judgment of eviction.
2. Brandt entered into a residential lease agreement with respondent Clay County HRA (HRA) with an initial term of December 1, 2018, to November 30, 2019. Upon expiration of the initial term, the lease automatically renewed on a month-to-month basis. Under the terms of the lease, HRA could terminate the lease if Brandt materially violated the lease.
3. Because Brandt's apartment operates under the rules and regulations of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, unauthorized persons cannot reside in a tenant's unit. Despite this rule, Brandt allowed her boyfriend to stay overnight several nights per week. HRA afforded Brandt an opportunity to add her boyfriend to the lease. Brandt refused to do so, despite HRA's warning that failure to do so violated her lease. HRA subsequently issued a 30-day notice of lease termination, but Brandt refused to vacate the apartment.
4. On August 10, 2023, HRA brought an eviction action against Brandt. On August 18, 2023, Brandt filed an answer, asserting that the eviction was retaliatory and alleging that there was a substantial problem with black mold in the building. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court determined that Brandt materially violated the lease because she allowed an unauthorized person to reside in her unit. The district court also concluded that Brandt failed to prove her retaliation defense. Accordingly, the district couit entered judgment in HRA's favor. Brandt appeals.
5. Brandt first argues that she was denied due process because certain papers were not "entered into the system for the Judge to see." We note that our review is hampered by a lack of argumentation or record evidence to support this claim. "Minnesota appellate couits decline to reach an issue in the absence of adequate briefing." In re Commitment of Kropp, 895 N.W.2d 647, 653 (Minn.App. 2017), rev. denied (Minn. June 20, 2017); see also State v. Butcher, 563 N.W.2d 776, 780 (Minn.App. 1997) (finding an argument waived when "appellant fails to make and develop any argument, other than a general statement"), rev. denied (Minn. Aug. 5, 1997). Because Brandt cites no authority, does not develop this argument beyond a general statement, and fails to provide record support, we decline to reach this issue.
6. Brandt also challenge the merits of the district court's decision, arguing that the district court erred when it determined that she materially violated the lease and failed to prove her retaliation defense.
7. We observe that Brandt failed to order a transcript of the district court's proceedings. The appellant bears "the burden to provide an adequate record." Mesenbourg v. Mesenbourg, 538 N.W.2d 489, 494 (Minn.App. 1995). As part of that burden, it is the appellant's duty to order "a transcript of those parts of the proceedings not already part of the record which are deemed necessary for inclusion in the record." Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.02, subd. 1(a). "When there is an evidentiary hearing, we are not able to review a party's argument that the other party [did or] did not prove its claims if no transcript is ordered." Fischer v. Simon, 980 N.W.2d. 142, 144 (Minn. 2022). Consequently, when a transcript is not provided on appeal, our task is "limited to determining whether the trial court's findings of fact support its conclusions of law." Am. Fam. Life Ins. Co. v. Noruk, 528 N.W.2d 921, 925 (Minn.App. 1995), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 27, 1995). Acting in a self-represented capacity "does not relieve appellants of the necessity of providing an adequate record and preserving it in a way that will permit review." Thorp Loan &Thrift Co. v. Morse, 451 N.W.2d 361, 363 (Minn.App. 1990), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 13, 1990).
8. Addressing the district court's decision, we confine our review to whether the district court's findings of fact support its conclusions of law. The district court found that Brandt materially violated her lease by allowing an unauthorized person to reside in her unit, and further found Brandt failed to present any evidence the building had black mold or that HRA retaliated against her. Because the factual findings support the legal conclusions that Brandt failed to prove her retaliation defense and that HRA was entitled to recover possession of the apartment, we affirm the district court's judgment of eviction.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's judgment 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.
Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const, art. VI, § 10.