On November 22, 2021, the Minnesota Court of Appeals decided the case of Fairmont Hous. & Redevelopment Auth. v. Winter, No. A21-0244 (Minn. App. 11/22/21). In this case, in October 2020, the defendants had damaged a lockbox containing a master key to all of the units in the building, but did not report that damage to the landlord until about a month later.
The landlord gave notice of lease termination, probably in November 2020, and brought an eviction when the tenants did not leave. There is no doubt that the notice was given and the eviction was filed while Executive Order 20 – 79 was in effect. That Executive Order prevents landlords from bringing evictions except for a limited number of exceptions, the most applicable of which is serious endangerment of others and significant damage to property..
The trial court found against the tenants, and the tenants appealed. While the appeal was pending, the legislature passed the eviction moratorium phase out, which stated that prior executive orders were "null and void." This language – and the interpretation of this language – became a focal point for the Court of Appeals.
Before the Court of Appeals, Fairmont argued that the phrase "null and void" meant that Executive Order 20 – 79 (and its predecessors) was void from the beginning, did not have any legal force or effect, and cannot and did not provide tenants with any protections, ever. In contrast, Winter argued that Executive Order 20 – 79 (and its predecessors) were void as of June 30, 2021, but that tenants enjoyed protections under those executive orders until that date.
The Court of Appeals decided that the phrase "null and void" in the eviction moratorium phase out legislation in reference to the previous executive orders was ambiguous and did not erase any rights acquired by tenants in those orders, but only in so far as those rights could be asserted prior to June 30, 2021, the date that the phase out legislation was enacted.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the lower court and ruled that the eviction was proper based on the exceptions in Executive Order 20 – 79 which permitted lease terminations and evictions for series endangerment of others and significant damage to property. However, the Court of Appeals also said that tenants could assert rights that they had acquired in the executive orders, but only if those rights had accrued to the tenants before June 30, 2021.
I don't see the Fairmont case as changing the landscape of landlord-tenant law in Minnesota, but it may be applicable to a very limited number of cases in which the lease was terminated or notice to vacate was given prior to June 30, 2021 and the landlord did not meet an exception to the then-existing executive orders
We are still in the eviction moratorium phase out, and the phaseout is still applicable to all situations. The best thing for landlords and tenants do is to communicate. I have said this before and will say it again, but if a tenant knows they are going to have problems paying the rent next month, they should reach out to the landlord. Conversely, if a landlord has not received a rent payment from a tenant, then the landlord should reach out to the tenant, and – if the tenant does not respond – the landlord should call the police and have the police do a welfare check on the tenant.
I always ask my clients (I only represent landlords, and do not represent residential tenants) what they want to have happen. If they just want to be paid, then I typically send a demand letter to the tenants with an eviction complaint, and say that I will file the complaint unless they pay the back rent. However, if the landlord just wants the tenants to leave, and just wants the place back, then I might bring an eviction based on all the valid reasons that I can find for bringing an eviction – except for nonpayment of rent.
The reason I do this is very simple – until June 1, 2022, a tenant has a defense to an eviction based on nonpayment if they have a pending application for rental assistance, even if they do not ultimately qualify. However, tenants do not have any such defense if an eviction is brought for reasons other than nonpayment of rent. That is why, even if the issue is nonpayment, I seldom include nonpayment in an eviction complaint.
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. The first thing I will ask you is what you want to have happen because, ultimately, the landlord is in control. I have represented many landlords, BUT DO NOT REPRESENT RESIDENTIAL 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 landlord gave notice of lease termination, probably in November 2020, and brought an eviction when the tenants did not leave. There is no doubt that the notice was given and the eviction was filed while Executive Order 20 – 79 was in effect. That Executive Order prevents landlords from bringing evictions except for a limited number of exceptions, the most applicable of which is serious endangerment of others and significant damage to property..
The trial court found against the tenants, and the tenants appealed. While the appeal was pending, the legislature passed the eviction moratorium phase out, which stated that prior executive orders were "null and void." This language – and the interpretation of this language – became a focal point for the Court of Appeals.
Before the Court of Appeals, Fairmont argued that the phrase "null and void" meant that Executive Order 20 – 79 (and its predecessors) was void from the beginning, did not have any legal force or effect, and cannot and did not provide tenants with any protections, ever. In contrast, Winter argued that Executive Order 20 – 79 (and its predecessors) were void as of June 30, 2021, but that tenants enjoyed protections under those executive orders until that date.
The Court of Appeals decided that the phrase "null and void" in the eviction moratorium phase out legislation in reference to the previous executive orders was ambiguous and did not erase any rights acquired by tenants in those orders, but only in so far as those rights could be asserted prior to June 30, 2021, the date that the phase out legislation was enacted.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the lower court and ruled that the eviction was proper based on the exceptions in Executive Order 20 – 79 which permitted lease terminations and evictions for series endangerment of others and significant damage to property. However, the Court of Appeals also said that tenants could assert rights that they had acquired in the executive orders, but only if those rights had accrued to the tenants before June 30, 2021.
I don't see the Fairmont case as changing the landscape of landlord-tenant law in Minnesota, but it may be applicable to a very limited number of cases in which the lease was terminated or notice to vacate was given prior to June 30, 2021 and the landlord did not meet an exception to the then-existing executive orders
We are still in the eviction moratorium phase out, and the phaseout is still applicable to all situations. The best thing for landlords and tenants do is to communicate. I have said this before and will say it again, but if a tenant knows they are going to have problems paying the rent next month, they should reach out to the landlord. Conversely, if a landlord has not received a rent payment from a tenant, then the landlord should reach out to the tenant, and – if the tenant does not respond – the landlord should call the police and have the police do a welfare check on the tenant.
I always ask my clients (I only represent landlords, and do not represent residential tenants) what they want to have happen. If they just want to be paid, then I typically send a demand letter to the tenants with an eviction complaint, and say that I will file the complaint unless they pay the back rent. However, if the landlord just wants the tenants to leave, and just wants the place back, then I might bring an eviction based on all the valid reasons that I can find for bringing an eviction – except for nonpayment of rent.
The reason I do this is very simple – until June 1, 2022, a tenant has a defense to an eviction based on nonpayment if they have a pending application for rental assistance, even if they do not ultimately qualify. However, tenants do not have any such defense if an eviction is brought for reasons other than nonpayment of rent. That is why, even if the issue is nonpayment, I seldom include nonpayment in an eviction complaint.
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. The first thing I will ask you is what you want to have happen because, ultimately, the landlord is in control. I have represented many landlords, BUT DO NOT REPRESENT RESIDENTIAL 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.
RSS Feed