Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Scroggins v. Solchaga, 552 N.W.2d 248 (1996)

Citation
Scroggins v. Solchaga, 552 N.W.2d 248 (1996) 3.
Parent Document
Scroggins v. Solchaga, 552 N.W.2d 248 (1996)
Jurisdiction
Minnesota (state)
Effective Date
1996-07-16

Other Sections in This Document (54)

Full Text

660 chars
3. Tenant claims that the second unlawful detainer judgment was wrongly entered because the notice to quit and unlawful detainer summons were not properly served, the second unlawful detainer action was retaliatory, and landlord lost her ability to evict tenant when the court accepted rent paid into the court. Landlord claims that tenant did not make a timely new trial motion and that the issues tenant now seeks to raise on appeal were not preserved for appeal. In unlawful detainer actions, “it is unnecessary to bring a motion for a new trial to preserve issues on appeal.” Minneapolis Pub. Housing Auth. v. Greene, 463 N.W.2d 558, 560 (Minn.App.1990). 2