Showing 21–40 of 128 results
retaliation defense. As explained below, we disagree with both arguments.
retaliation defense, maintaining that the eviction was “presumptively retaliatory” because
subd. 1(a)(3) (2022). But a landlord may not terminate a tenancy in retaliation for a
court acknowledged appellants’ “assert[ion] that [respondent was] retaliating against them
Here, the district court determined that respondent could not “retaliate against
7 I. The district court did not err by concluding that Florin-Clemants failed to establish a retaliation defense.
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...
2023) and (2) by rejecting their retaliation defense. We conclude that, because appellants
under the statute.” The district court therefore ruled that respondent could not “retaliate
determined that appellants failed to establish a retaliation defense because the parties’ oral
subd. 2(2) (providing for a retaliation defense where “the alleged termination was intended
that the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting appellants’ retaliation defense. 6
...We doubt that the Legislature sought to prohibit retaliation against a tenant for filing a lawsuit but to allow retaliation against a tenant for taking the steps necessary to file that same lawsuit.
II. The district court did not err in determining that the scope of the eviction trial was properly limited to the retaliation issue.
II. Did the district court abuse its discretion by determining that appellants failed to establish a retaliation defense?
We therefore conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting appellants’ retaliation defense. 14 DECISION
provided appellants sufficient notice. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion by rejecting appellants’ retaliation defense. Affirmed. 15
10 II. The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that appellants failed to establish a retaliation defense.
continue living at the house” and that Yess acted in retaliation.
Olson does not argue on appeal that CHA has waived or forfeited the argument that the retaliation defense is not available as a matter of law.