Opinion
A23-1386
05-21-2024
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, Respondent, v. Teresa M. Lentz, Appellant, John Doe, et al., Defendants.
Sherburne County District Court File No. 71-CV-23-663
Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Gaitas, Judge; and Larson, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Francis J. Connolly, Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. On August 8, 2006, the mortgage granted by appellant Teresa Lentz to Lakeland Mortgage Co. on a property in Elk River, MN, and the assignment of that mortgage to respondent Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) were recorded.
2. Appellant did not challenge the foreclosure notice she received in September 2022, and the property was foreclosed with a six-month-redemption period in November 2022.
3. Appellant did not redeem the property in May 2023 but remained in possession of it, and respondent filed an eviction action and personally served appellant with a summons and complaint.
4. Following a hearing on respondent's motion for summary judgment and appellant's request for a continuance, the district court granted respondent's motion.
5. The district court issued a writ of recovery, and appellant filed a motion to stay the writ. Following a hearing the district court granted the stay and set a supersedeas bond at $16,000, approximately two thirds of the $23,891 requested by respondent for 14 months of mortgage payments and homeowners' association dues. After we took this appeal under advisement, appellant filed a motion that appears to challenge the amount of the security requirement. Respondent opposes the motion.
6. We may review the conditions of a stay pending appeal under Minn. R. Civ. App. P.108.02, subd. 6. A stay pending appeal is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Cmty. Action P'ship. Of Scott, Carver &Dakota Cntys. v. Britton, 982 N.W.2d 404, 406 (Minn. 2022). Appellant has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in setting the amount of security. Appellant's motion "to recover security bond" is denied.
7. Appellant also challenges the grant of summary judgment. This court will "review the grant of summary judgment de novo to determine whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law." Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., 898 N.W.2d 623, 628 (Minn. 2017) (quotations omitted).
8. The district court concluded that MHFA established its legal ownership of the property with the Certificate of Sale, that appellant's retaining possession and not redeeming were undisputed, that appellant had held over on the property, and that MHFA was therefore entitled to summary judgment in its eviction action. The district court also noted that appellant failed to present a genuine issue of material fact and that her arguments as to the validity of the foreclosure were outside its scope.
9. Appellant offers no support for her views that a certificate of sale cannot be admitted both as evidence in an eviction proceeding and as evidence in a foreclosure proceeding and that a certificate of sale is "weak and inappropriate" evidence for an eviction proceeding.
10. Appellant claims that respondent "failed to present material facts that may have presented a genuine issue for the court," but does not perceive that it was her obligation, not respondent's, to show a genuine issue of material fact if she wanted to prevent summary judgment once respondent put forth its compelling evidence.
11. Appellant has not shown either a genuine issue of material fact or a misapplication of the law that would prevent summary judgment.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's grant of summary 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.