Cent. Hous. Assocs., LP v. Olson, 910 N.W.2d 485 (2018)

Citation: Cent. Hous. Assocs., LP v. Olson, 910 N.W.2d 485 (2018)
Parent Document: Cent. Hous. Assocs., LP v. Olson, 910 N.W.2d 485 (2018)
Jurisdiction: Minnesota (state)
Effective Date: 2018-04-09
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8283559/cent-hous-assocs-lp-v-olson/ ↗

Full Text

768 chars

Central Housing argues that the district court misapplied the law when it relied on the jury's retaliation finding to deny Central Housing possession after its eviction action. We review a district court's application of the law de novo. Harlow v. State, Dep't of Human Servs. , 883 N.W.2d 561, 568 (Minn. 2016). Central Housing also argues that the district court improperly instructed the jury on the retaliatory-eviction defense. If Central Housing is correct that the district court cannot, as a matter of law, rely on retaliation to prevent landlord repossession in an eviction action premised on a breach of lease, we need not reach Central Housing's jury-instruction argument. We therefore first answer *488whether the retaliatory-eviction defense applies here.

Other Sections in This Document (25)

Full Text