Canon a personal representative of an estate get rid of someone living in the deceased person's house? The short answer is yes, but the road can be long and difficult. The solution depends in part whether the occupant moved in with the permission of the decedent or after the decedent died. Getting rid of an unauthorized occupant can be a factually and legally complex situation.

What is it steak is how much notice must be given under the law. With the death of the decedent, the document arguably no longer has permission to live in the property. In that case, the occupant is "holding over" on real property, or occupying it without permission.  However, perhaps the occupant was paying the mortgage or doing something else on a monthly basis. In that case, the occupant might be entitled to one month and one day advance notice. However, if the occupant was not paying any money or providing any services on a monthly basis, then the occupant would be entitled to a 90 day advance notice.

I am not making this up. The relevant statute says that the notice to be given must be at least the interval between rent payments or 90 days, whichever is greater. Here is the statute, so you can see for yourself:

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/504B.135

These sorts of situations are very complex with lots of different nuances. Anyone who finds himself in this sort of situation should consult with an attorney who is experienced in such matters. That way, you will be able to determine the best course of action. In my book, the best course of action might be the one that is least expensive, but that is not always the case.

I would be remiss in not telling you that Minnesota is a very tenant friendly state these days, and some counties are more tenant friendly than others. The course of action that you take may depend on what County the property is located in. For example, I know I can take certain actions in one county, but those actions would not be advised in another county. The counties will remain nameless.

Every tenant situation is unique, and I recommend that property owners talk to an attorney experienced in evictions and landlord tenant law before taking action based on this blog post.  To that end, I invite landlords to give me a call at 763-290-0445 to discuss their unique situation. I do not represent residential tenants.

As a general rule, I prefer legally and factually complex situations that other attorneys will not touch. I like to figure out unique solutions to complex problems. You might describe the situations as complicated, messy, or ugly – I welcome them all.

A property owner can expect that I will charge a consultation fee of $250 for a 30 minute consultation by way of telephone, video, or in person, whatever is best for the property owner. If there is a written lease or agreement for possession of the property, I will want to see that. If the property owner has provided any notices or if there are other pertinent communications between the property owner in the tenant, I want to see those as well. In addition, I would like to see anything else that the property owner thinks is important.

WARNING: The information contained in this blog post does not constitute legal advice and may not be applicable to your situation.  Tim is licensed to practice law only in Minnesota, and the information contained in this blog post may not apply to jurisdictions outside of Minnesota.  Further, reading this blog post does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Baland Law Office, P.L.L.C.  You should always discuss your situation with an attorney before taking any action based on what you may read in this blog.  To that end, please call (763) 290-0445 to set up an appointment to discuss your situation.

I am often asked what new laws affect the landlords in Minnesota. The short answer is a lot.  In my opinion, the legislature did a lot of damage to property owners when they enacted these laws. I have actually presented to groups of landlords about the new laws affecting them:

Here is the presentation:​

​Every tenant situation is unique, and I recommend that property owners talk to an attorney experienced in evictions and landlord tenant law before taking action based on this blog post.  To that end, I invite landlords to give me a call at 763-290-0445 to discuss their unique situation. I typically do not represent tenants.

A property owner can expect that I will charge a consultation fee of $250 for a 30 minute consultation by way of telephone, video, or in person, whatever is best for the property owner. If there is a written lease or agreement for possession of the property, I will want to see that. If the property owner has provided any notices or if there are other pertinent communications between the property owner in the tenant, I want to see those as well. In addition, I would like to see anything else that the property owner thinks is important.

WARNING: The information contained in this blog post does not constitute legal advice and may not be applicable to your situation.  Tim is licensed to practice law only in Minnesota, and the information contained in this blog post may not apply to jurisdictions outside of Minnesota.  Further, reading this blog post does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Baland Law Office, P.L.L.C.  You should always discuss your situation with an attorney before taking any action based on what you may read in this blog.  To that end, please call (763) 290-0445 to set up an appointment to discuss your situation.

I am often asked whether Smart landlords should charge a security deposit as a condition of leasing rental premises. The short, cocktail party answer, answer is no, probably not.

Under Minn. Stat. 504B.178, the property owner has to return the security deposit with interest within 21 days of the date that the tenants move out and provide instructions for the delivery of the security deposit to the property owner. There is a fairly recent Minnesota Court of Appeals case – in my view, decided wrongly – that says that the only thing that matters is the 21 days.

In the tenant friendly state that we live in, judges tend to be very strict with the 21 days. I actually had a case several years ago where the property owner did not return the security deposit until the 23rd day after the tenants left. In addition, the tenants were arguably still in possession because they had personal property remaining in the rental premises.

Under the statute, the tenant can sue for the amount of the security deposit, double that amount as a penalty, and an additional $500 if the judge finds that the security deposit was withheld in bad faith. In the case I just referred to, that is almost exactly what happened, except that the judge did not find that the security deposit had been withheld in bad faith.

Tenants have the right to sue for the security deposit, double that amount is a penalty, and an additional $500 if a judge finds that the property owner withheld the security deposit in bad faith. I would take that right to sue away from the tenants by returning the entire amount of the security deposit. In the memo line of the check, I would put something like "no waiver of damages beyond ordinary wear and tear." I would go so far as to take a photograph of the check, asked the post office to hand stamp the envelope, and take a photograph of the envelope with the hand stamped postmark before it is deposited in the mail.

If a property owner has charged a security deposit, I wouldn't fret, but just return the entire amount. The property owner can send it to the last known address of the defendants, which may very well be the address of the rental property.  If the tenants did not set up mail forwarding with United States Postal System, that is their problem.

For all property owners, I would not charge security deposits going forward.  However, I am a firm believer that tenants need to have some skin in the game. Under the current law, as this is written in October 2025, the property owner is okay charging the first month's rent before a tenant moves in.  If a property owner is on the fence or a background check did not come back as clean as the property owner might like, I might charge last month's rent as well, and consider not renting to that particular tenant, if the property owner is permitted to decline a rental application in the property owners municipality.

The property owner is always wise to check local ordinances and applicable statutes to make sure that they are not running afoul of the city Council or legislature.  Although the reasons that have to be given for declining a rental application is beyond the scope of this post, the property owner generally has to be able to state a non-discriminatory reason for declining the application. In other words, the property owner cannot decline a rental application due to a protected class status (race, religion, ethnicity, sexuality, gender identity, etc.).

Every tenant situation is unique, and I recommend that property owners talk to an attorney experienced in evictions and landlord tenant law before taking action based on this blog post.  To that end, I invite landlords to give me a call at 763-290-0445 to discuss their unique situation. I typically do not represent tenants.

A property owner can expect that I will charge a consultation fee of $250 for a 30 minute consultation by way of telephone, video, or in person, whatever is best for the property owner. If there is a written lease or agreement for possession of the property, I will want to see that. If the property owner has provided any notices or if there are other pertinent communications between the property owner in the tenant, I want to see those as well. In addition, I would like to see anything else that the property owner thinks is important.


WARNING: The information contained in this blog post does not constitute legal advice and may not be applicable to your situation.  Tim is licensed to practice law only in Minnesota, and the information contained in this blog post may not apply to jurisdictions outside of Minnesota.  Further, reading this blog post does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Baland Law Office, P.L.L.C.  You should always discuss your situation with an attorney before taking any action based on what you may read in this blog.  To that end, please call (763) 290-0445 to set up an appointment to discuss your situation.
.

It should be no surprise to anyone that Minnesota is a very tenant friendly state these days. Certain counties within Minnesota are more tenant friendly than others, but landlords (or, as I prefer to call them, property owners) cannot count on getting a fair shake from the court system.

That is why I generally recommend that property owners attempt to get a tenant to leave voluntarily, and use the eviction process as a last resort. I have had a number of cases where we have made every attempt to get the tenant to leave voluntarily – and to avoid having an eviction placed on the record – but in the end the tenant has left us with no choice but to file against them.

I am not afraid to file if the tenant leaves us with no choice, but I prefer not to file unless every other avenue has been exhausted. The reason is this: a tenant who checks in for housing court is asked if they want to speak with a free attorney or other resources. In some cases, those  free resources can help a tenant to find a new housing situation, but in most cases those resources help – and indeed encourage – the tenant to fight the eviction.

I do not know about you, but I am sick and tired of being complacent. I will encourage a landlord to agree to a settlement agreement if that is in the landlord's best interest, but the tenant will have to request a trial if the settlement agreement that is proposed is not favorable to the landlord. I am sick and tired of making concessions to tenants without getting anything in return.

The problem is that if a landlord is forced to file an eviction, settling is a way of ending the case – and ending the expenditure of money on the part of the landlord. There are plenty of free attorneys and resources for tenants, but none that I have found for property owners. Fighting costs money, and property owners should be prepared to spend some money if they have to file an eviction or hire an attorney.

​A property owner can expect that I will charge a consultation fee of $250 for a 30 minute consultation by way of telephone, video, or in person, whatever is best for the property owner. If there is a written lease or agreement for possession of the property, I will want to see that. If the property owner has provided any notices or if there are other pertinent communications between the property owner in the tenant, I want to see those as well. In addition, I would like to see anything else that the property owner thinks is important.

Every tenant situation is unique, and I recommend that property owners talk to an attorney experienced in evictions and landlord tenant law before taking action based on this blog post.  To that end, I invite landlords to give me a call at 763-290-0445 to discuss their unique situation. I typically do not represent tenants.

WARNING: The information contained in this blog post does not constitute legal advice and may not be applicable to your situation.  Tim is licensed to practice law only in Minnesota, and the information contained in this blog post may not apply to jurisdictions outside of Minnesota.  Further, reading this blog post does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Baland Law Office, P.L.L.C.  You should always discuss your situation with an attorney before taking any action based on what you may read in this blog.  To that end, please call (763) 290-0445 to set up an appointment to discuss your situation.

Can a landlord evict tenants in wheelchairs? The short answer is yes, but the landlord needs to be aware of the potential pitfalls of doing so. In the past, I have represented property owners and not in wheelchairs, and evicted tenants both in wheelchairs and not in wheelchairs.  Right out of the gate, I want to let you know that I think the term "landlord" is pejorative, and so will be using the term "property owner" instead throughout the remainder of this article.

​I have been quoted in the Minnesota Star Tribune for my work on the case involving defendants in wheelchairs. This case is currently being appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. In addition, the defendants have filed a motion to vacate the eviction judgment against them and for a new trial.   This is actually the second group of tenants in wheelchairs that I have evicted (although the Writ of Recovery is currently stayed).

 Anyway, here is that article:

Property owners have rights, and those rights include doing what they want with real property that they own within the constraints of the law,, even if it is occupied by tenants. A property owner might decide to get rid of all the tenants and leave the property vacant.  A property owner might decide to get a brand-new tenants. It is largely up to the property owner what they want to do, although I would always recommend that a property owner check with the local municipality to make sure that the proposed use is permitted, or that a special license is not required.

Defendants in wheelchairs tend to present very sympathetic situations, but are not necessarily the most sympathetic of people.  I would recommend that property owners seek the advice of competent legal counsel if they want to evict a tenant in a wheelchair. These situations tend to be complex, the defendants are s sympathetic, and the property owner will be well served by having an attorney on their side.

 If the tenant will not leave voluntarily, as of the date of this writing, the most time that a judge can give a tenant to leave – whether in a wheelchair or not – is 7 days.  That does not seem like a lot of time, but that is what the law allows.   I always happy to speak to any property owner about how to deal with a problem tenant.

A property owner can expect that I will charge a consultation fee of $250 for a 30 minute consultation by way of telephone, video, or in person, whatever is best for the property owner. If there is a written lease or agreement for possession of the property, I will want to see that. If the property owner has provided any notices or if there are other pertinent communications between the property owner in the tenant, I want to see those as well. In addition, I would like to see anything else that the property owner thinks is important.

Every tenant situation is unique, and I recommend that property owners talk to an attorney experienced in evictions and landlord tenant law before taking action based on this blog post.  To that end, I invite landlords to give me a call at 763-290-0445 to discuss their unique situation. I typically do not represent tenants.

WARNING: The information contained in this blog post does not constitute legal advice and may not be applicable to your situation.  Tim is licensed to practice law only in Minnesota, and the information contained in this blog post may not apply to jurisdictions outside of Minnesota.  Further, reading this blog post does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Baland Law Office, P.L.L.C.  You should always discuss your situation with an attorney before taking any action based on what you may read in this blog.  To that end, please call (763) 290-0445 to set up an appointment to discuss your situation.

​I am happy to announce that I have been quoted in the  Minnesota Star Tribune (front page, Thursday, April 17, 2025 edition) and on Fox 9 news. The newspaper story is slightly more favorable than the video. Many have you have already seen the stories, but here are the links:

il​www.startribune.com/facing-eviction-disabled-couple-rally-support-to-stay-in-their-maplewood-apartment/601331060?utm_source=email

https://www.fox9.com/news/disability-advocates-facing-eviction-maplewood

You may need to create an account to read the article in the Star Tribune. A PDF of the Star Tribune article is below.

Contrary to popular belief, property owners have rights – basically, the right to do with their property what they will within the constraints of the law. I always happy to speak to any property owner about how to deal with a problem tenant.

A property owner can expect that I will charge a consultation fee of $250 for a 30 minute consultation by way of telephone, video, or in person, whatever is best for the property owner. If there is a written lease or agreement for possession of the property, I will want to see that. If the property owner has provided any notices or if there are other pertinent communications between the property owner in the tenant, I want to see those as well. In addition, I would like to see anything else that the property owner thinks is important.

Every landlord – tenant situation is unique, and I recommend that landlords talk to an attorney experienced in evictions and landlord tenant law before taking action based on this blog post.  To that end, I invite landlords to give me a call at 763-290-0445 to discuss their unique situation. I typically do not represent tenants.

WARNING: The information contained in this blog post does not constitute legal advice and may not be applicable to your situation.  Tim is licensed to practice law only in Minnesota, and the information contained in this blog post may not apply to jurisdictions outside of Minnesota.  Further, reading this blog post does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Baland Law Office, P.L.L.C.  You should always discuss your situation with an attorney before taking any action based on what you may read in this blog.  To that end, please call (763) 290-0445 to set up an appointment to discuss your situation.

I am often asked how a landlord can get rid of a problem tenant.  As a preliminary matter, I tend to prefer the term "property owner" as opposed to "landlord" because saying property owner is much less pejorative and carries much less negative connotations than landlord.  The first reaction of the property owner is probably to say that I want to evict the problem tenant, but that is seldom the best course of action. Rather, the property owner wants to convince the problem tenant to leave voluntarily.

​If the property owner has no success in getting the problem tenant leave voluntarily, then the next step is really up to the property owner and what the property owner wants to happen.  Usually, the property owner either wants the tenant to pay rent or they simply want the rental premises back. That is one of the first questions that I always ask a property owner – what you want to have happen?

In the course of the meeting, the property owner and I will talk about what the property owner wants and options for achieving that goal. Actually, some options do not cost anything at all, and other options are more expensive, which is what you would expect. I only represent property owners and do not represent residential tenants. I have been helping residential property owners get rid of problem tenants since 2009.

A property owner can expect that I will charge a consultation fee of $195 for a 30 minute consultation by way of telephone, video, or in person, whatever is best for the property owner. If there is a written lease or agreement for possession of the property, I will want to see that. If the property owner has provided any notices or if there are other pertinent communications between the property owner in the tenant, I want to see those as well. In addition, I would like to see anything else that the property owner thinks is important.

Every landlord – tenant situation is unique, and I recommend that landlords talk to an attorney experienced in evictions and landlord tenant law before taking action based on this blog post.  To that end, I invite landlords to give me a call at 763-290-0445 to discuss their unique situation. I typically do not represent tenants.

WARNING: The information contained in this blog post does not constitute legal advice and may not be applicable to your situation.  Tim is licensed to practice law only in Minnesota, and the information contained in this blog post may not apply to jurisdictions outside of Minnesota.  Further, reading this blog post does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Baland Law Office, P.L.L.C.  You should always discuss your situation with an attorney before taking any action based on what you may read in this blog.  To that end, please call (763) 290-0445 to set up an appointment to discuss your situation.

Tim is teaching a free seminar for landlords and property owners about the new laws affecting the landlord-tenant relationship on Friday, August 23, 2024 at 9 AM. Space is limited, so advance registration is required. For more information and to register, please see:

us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZwvc-Cspj0iGtHTKKRlgf1iZQIIIcBLdIEP

Every landlord – tenant situation is unique, and I recommend that landlords talk to an attorney experienced in evictions and landlord tenant law before taking action based on this blog post.  To that end, I invite landlords to give me a call at 763-290-0445 to discuss their unique situation. I typically do not represent tenants.

WARNING: The information contained in this blog post does not constitute legal advice and may not be applicable to your situation.  Tim is licensed to practice law only in Minnesota, and the information contained in this blog post may not apply to jurisdictions outside of Minnesota.  Further, reading this blog post does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Baland Law Office, P.L.L.C.  You should always discuss your situation with an attorney before taking any action based on what you may read in this blog.  To that end, please call (763) 290-0445 to set up an appointment to discuss your situation.

Tim has drafted a summary of the new landlord tenant laws passed in the 2024 legislative session. Most of the new laws do not affect landlords greatly, but some of them do – they give landlords more significant responsibilities and give tenants more significant rights, and more cases in which an unscrupulous tenant can get attorney fees awarded by a judge. The summary is attached.

Every landlord – tenant situation is unique, and I recommend that landlords talk to an attorney experienced in evictions and landlord tenant law before taking action based on this blog post.  To that end, I invite landlords to give me a call at 763-290-0445 to discuss their unique situation. I typically do not represent tenants.

WARNING: The information contained in this blog post does not constitute legal advice and may not be applicable to your situation.  Tim is licensed to practice law only in Minnesota, and the information contained in this blog post may not apply to jurisdictions outside of Minnesota.  Further, reading this blog post does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Baland Law Office, P.L.L.C.  You should always discuss your situation with an attorney before taking any action based on what you may read in this blog.  To that end, please call (763) 290-0445 to set up an appointment to discuss your situation.

The short answer is that in this day and age a landlord shall not charge a security deposit per se because of the potential financial penalties and legal hassles that the landlord can get from an unscrupulous tenant. That said, I think that landlords should charge the first month's rent and last month's rent, but they do not want to charge a security deposit subject to Minn. Stat. 504B.178.

First, I have written a blog post about how landlords should handle security deposits after a tenant moves out. All landlords (and tenants, for that matter) should read this blog post:

https://balandlaw.com/blog/how-should-a-landlord-handle-a-tenants-security-deposit-after-the-tenant-moves-out

Here is why: under that statute, the landlord has 21 days from the date that the tenant moves out (and provides their forwarding address in writing) to either return the security deposit to the tenant with interest or provide an explanation as to why all or part of the security deposit was withheld.  However, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has held that the tenant does not need to provide a forwarding address to trigger the 21 day deadline. Please see this guest blog post for more information:

https://balandlaw.com/blog/guest-blog-post-by-attorney-paul-birnberg-on-security-deposits-was-mungall-v-garry-correctly-decided

If the landlord does not meet the deadline, even by a day, or the tenant sues to question the reasons for withholding, the landlord is liable to the amount of the security deposit wrongfully withheld, double that amount as a penalty, and an additional $500 if the judge finds that the landlord withheld the security deposit in bad faith.

Because of the potential dangers and liabilities involved in charging a security deposit, I generally recommend that landlords do not charge the security deposit, and just take steps to vet their tenants thoroughly.  Charting the security deposit is not worth the hassle that it might create. Tenants have the right to sue a property owner to recover a security deposit. I would take that right away from them by not charging a security deposit in the first place.

Every landlord – tenant situation is unique, and I recommend that landlords talk to an attorney experienced in evictions and landlord tenant law before taking action based on this blog post.  To that end, I invite landlords to give me a call at 763-290-0445 to discuss their unique situation. I typically do not represent tenants.

WARNING: The information contained in this blog post does not constitute legal advice and may not be applicable to your situation.  Tim is licensed to practice law only in Minnesota, and the information contained in this blog post may not apply to jurisdictions outside of Minnesota.  Further, reading this blog post does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Baland Law Office, P.L.L.C.  You should always discuss your situation with an attorney before taking any action based on what you may read in this blog.  To that end, please call (763) 290-0445 to set up an appointment to discuss your situation.