Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Citation
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Parent Document
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Jurisdiction
- Minnesota (state)
- Effective Date
- 2019-03-06
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8286581/ellis-v-doe/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (45)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258 (2019)
- Section 645
- Section 645
- Section 645
- Section 645
- Section 645
Full Text
739 charsThe referee then turned to the tenant's habitability defense. Based on the tenant's testimony, the photographs of the unit offered as exhibits, and the city inspector's report, the court found that "the condition of the premises violated the statutory covenants of habitability." Although Ellis testified that he had addressed all of the issues in the city inspector's letter, the referee found Ellis's testimony "untrustworthy" and noted that he "was unable to answer very basic questions about the interactions of the parties." The referee found that the tenant was entitled to retroactive and prospective rent abatement in the amount of $250 per month until Ellis completed all outstanding repairs listed in the notice sent by the city.