Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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

Other Sections in This Document (45)

Full Text

956 chars
*263In subdivision 11 of section 504B.385, the Legislature demonstrated its intent not to displace common-law or other remedies: "The residential tenant rights under this section may not be waived or modified and are in addition to and do not limit other rights or remedies which may be available to the residential tenant and landlord, except as provided in subdivision 1." (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, the statutory rent-escrow action should be seen as a remedy "in addition to" the common-law right to bring a habitability defense to an eviction action. Moreover, subdivisions 3 and 4 from section 504B.161-the covenants of habitability statute-also support a holding that a Fritz defense is still a viable defense for a tenant to assert in an eviction action. These subdivisions state that the covenants should be liberally construed and that they are in addition to any covenants or conditions imposed by law. See Minn. Stat. § 504B.161, subds. 3-4.