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

527 chars
The rationale behind Fritz also supports the tenant's position. The holding from Fritz that the covenants of habitability and the covenant to pay rent are mutually dependent supports a conclusion that a tenant should be able to raise the defense, even if the additional remedy of a rent-escrow action now exists. See Fritz , 213 N.W.2d at 341. Because the covenants of habitability and covenant to pay rent are mutually dependent, rent or part of rent may not be due when a violation of the habitability covenants has occurred.