Opinion
A24-0570
09-04-2024
Rick Schultz, d/b/a Schultz Properties, Respondent, v. Valerie Steiner, Appellant.
Benton County District Court File No. 05-CV-24-362
Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Larson, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Louise Dovre Bjorkman, Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant Valerie Steiner challenges an eviction judgment entered following a trial in favor of respondent Rick Schultz. The eviction is premised on the undisputed fact that Steiner failed to pay rent for six months. Steiner argues that the district court clearly erred by rejecting her testimony that the condition of her apartment made it uninhabitable, and that Schultz commenced the eviction proceeding in retaliation for various complaints she made. We are not persuaded to reverse.
2. An eviction is a "summary court proceeding to remove a tenant or occupant from . . . real property by the process of law" for, among other reasons, nonpayment of rent. Minn. Stat. §§ 504B.001, subd. 4, .291, subd. 1(a) (2022 &Supp. 2023). An eviction proceeding "requires the district court to determine whether the facts alleged in the eviction complaint are true." Nationwide Hous. Corp. v. Skoglund, 906 N.W.2d 900, 904 (Minn.App. 2018), rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 28, 2018). We review a district court's factual findings for clear error. Id. at 907. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is "manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole." In re Civ. Commitment of Kenney, 963 N.W.2d 214, 221 (Minn. 2021) (quotation omitted); see NY Props., LLC v. Schuette, 977 N.W.2d 862, 865 (Minn.App. 2022) (applying the clear-error standard from Kenney in an eviction case).
3. During the April 4, 2024 trial, the district court heard testimony from the parties, Schultz's property manager, and the city building inspector. The district court also received 150 exhibits, including 112 exhibits Steiner offered (mostly photographs and video recordings of her unit, the apartment building, and parking lot). Following the hearing, the district court issued an order containing detailed findings of fact, including express findings that Schultz's testimony regarding his efforts to promptly repair defects in the apartment was credible and that Steiner's failure to pursue a rent escrow action under Minn. Stat. § 504B.385 (2022) "undermines the credibility of her claims that she believed the apartment . . . was uninhabitable due to the defects described in her testimony." And the district court found that Schultz did not commence the eviction action "in a retaliatory manner or for a retaliatory purpose." Consistent with its factual determinations, the district court concluded that eviction was warranted because Steiner "failed to pay rent for a period of six months while continuing to reside in the apartment," in violation of her lease.
4. The record defeats Steiner's first argument-that the apartment was uninhabitable so as to relieve her of the obligation to pay rent. Steiner moved into the apartment in May 2023. She began complaining about the condition of her apartment and the common areas almost immediately. Steiner's primary complaint was the lack of heat in her apartment, which Schultz remedied in November. Schultz explained that the issue involved the thermostat in Steiner's unit, which he manually adjusted as soon as he learned of the problem. An outside repair person fixed the problem within a week. The district court found that "Schultz's testimony on this point [was] credible, and that the apartment has adequate heat suitable for [Steiner's] habitation and comfort . . . since November 11, 2023."
5. During the two months before the trial, the city building inspector examined the apartment building three times. The inspector noted several conditions that needed to be corrected. He explained that all but one of the conditions (a missing fire door that had been ordered) was corrected by March 14, and none of the conditions rendered Steiner's apartment uninhabitable. By rejecting Steiner's claim that the apartment was uninhabitable, the district court implicitly found the city inspector's testimony credible. We give great deference to a district court's credibility determinations. Cimarron Vill. v. Washington, 659 N.W.2d 811, 818 (Minn.App. 2003). On this record, we discern no clear error in the district court's finding that Steiner's apartment was not uninhabitable.
6. The record also defeats Steiner's contention that Schultz sought to evict her in retaliation for her complaints. Retaliation is a defense that may be available if an eviction action "is intended as a penalty for the residential tenant's . . . complaint of a violation." Minn. Stat. § 504B.441 (2022). The district court found that the "timing and sequence of events in this case clearly depicts [Shultz's] desire to evict [Steiner] for purely economic reasons rather than as a penalty for her actions and repeated complaints." The record supports these findings, and Steiner does not point to any evidence that suggests otherwise. Her allegations that Schultz is responsible for the death of her dog, damaged one of her car's tires, and cut the brakes in her car, lack any support in the record. Based on our careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err by finding that Schultz did not commence this eviction proceeding to retaliate against her.
Steiner's briefs also present wholly unsubstantiated claims that other individuals and entities-including judges and staff of the Seventh Judicial District, the clerk of the appellate courts, members of the Sauk Rapids Police Department, Benton County representatives, and staff from the City of Sauk Rapids-are biased and have retaliated against her. Because Steiner's arguments are unrelated to the eviction issue on appeal, we do not consider them. See Thiele v. Stitch, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582-83 (Minn. 1988) ("An appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal ....").
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.