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

1,175 chars

The district court did not fully explain why it concluded that the retaliation defense was available to defeat Central Housing's eviction action. The district court's order quotes Minnesota Statutes, sections 504B.285 and 504B.441, notes the policies underlying the defenses, and concludes, "It is reasonable for the Legislature to have enacted a statutory scheme that provides a safe harbor mechanism for tenants." Before we analyze de novo each statute to address whether it allows a retaliation defense to prevent an eviction in this case, we emphasize that eviction actions are intended to be summary proceedings to efficiently adjudicate only a single issue-the present right to evict and to recover possession of real property. Minn. Stat. § 504B.001, subd. 4 (2016). "Defendants may, however, raise defenses and counterclaims that fit within the limited scope of an eviction proceeding." Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co. v. Hanson , 841 N.W.2d 161, 164 (Minn. App. 2014). The legislature has provided statutory defenses for specific circumstances, and these include the defense at issue here-the retaliation defense. Retaliation Defense under Section 504B.285, Subdivision 2

Other Sections in This Document (25)

Full Text