Consistent with all of these authorities, this court previously has stated in non-precedential opinions that a district court errs if it issues a writ of recovery without entering or before entering judgment. SeeVerjovsky v. Mental Health Resources, Inc. , No. A11-454, 2011 WL 6306652, at *2 (Minn. App. Dec. 19, 2011) ("In an eviction action, the district court must order judgment in the landlord's favor before a writ of recovery may be issued."); Morford-Garcia v. Metropolitan Council Hous. & Redevelopment Auth. , No. A08-2203, 2009 WL 4909435, at *1 (Minn. App. Dec. 22, 2009) ("In an eviction action, the district court must order judgment for the landlord before a writ of recovery may be issued." ); see alsoPrime Sec. Bank v. Hartman , No. A11-1753, 2012 WL 3263785, at *2 (Minn. App. Aug. 13, 2012) (noting that, while appeal from Carver County was pending, special-term panel of court of appeals had "order[ed] vacation of the writ of recovery because the district court failed to enter judgment in the eviction proceeding before issuing the writ"), review denied (Minn.

24 C.F.R. § 982.310(a)(1) (emphasis added). The Authority also directs the Court to Morford-Garcia v. Metropolitan Council Housing and Redevelopment Authority, No. A08-2203, 2009 WL 4909435 (Minn. App. Dec. 22, 2009), an unpublished opinion of the Minnesota Court of Appeals.Morford-Garcia involved an eviction action brought by a private landlord against a Section 8 tenant, which was settled by a termination of the lease. On the basis of the settlement, the housing authority terminated the tenant's Section 8 benefits, and the tenant appealed.