Retaliatory Eviction

Landlord counters that the eviction was because of repeated lease violations

Terrace v. Price, Court of Appeals of Minnesota, Nos. C5-98-434 & (3-98-480 (1998)

      Price and Williams rented subsidized Section 8 housing in Minnesota. The tenants complained to the landlord and to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) about the apartment's condition. HUD investigated, but was satisfied with the landlord's explanation of repairs.

      Soon after the HUD investigation, in September 1997, the landlord sent the tenants a notice of termination. The landlords claimed that between July 1996 and September 1997 the tenants violated their lease a number of times, and warranted eviction for "good cause".

      The landlord accepted rent from the tenants in October 1997 but not in November. Instead, it filed an unlawful detainer action.

      The tenants claimed the landlord was illegally evicting them in retaliation for their complaint to HUD. Under state law, if a landlord tried to evict a tenant within 90 days of a tenant's filing a complaint, the landlord had to prove the notice wasn't served "in whole or in part for a retaliatory purpose."

      To prove it wasn't retaliating based on the HUD complaint, the landlord had to show "a substantial non-retaliatory reason for the eviction." The landlord claimed it was evicting the tenants based on three incidents in which the police were called to the tenants' apartment. The police arrested Williams twice for domestic assault and ticketed him once for disorderly conduct. According to the landlord, it could evict the tenants because the lease gave it the right to evict the tenants for "material noncompliance," defined to include "repeated minor violations of the lease."

Landlord wins

      A housing court referee ruled in favor of the landlord, finding the incidents involving the police were repeated minor lease violations and justified eviction.

Tenants appeal

      The tenants appealed to a state court. They claimed state law required the landlord to prove it had a substantial reason for evicting them and all the landlord proved were minor lease violations. The tenants also claimed the landlord waived its right to evict them by accepting their rent after the first and second incidents without notifying them of the lease violations.

Landlord wins again

      The court affirmed the housing court's decision.

Tenants appeal again

DECISION: Affirmed.

      The landlord had a legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons to evict the tenants because of their repeated lease violations. If repeated minor violations couldn't form the landlord's substantial non-retaliatory reason, the landlord couldn't terminate any lease despite a tenant's "material noncompliance." The landlord didn't waive its right to rely on the minor lease violations by not reprimanding the tenants; this would mean the landlord acquiesced in the assaults and disorderly conduct that prompted the police to arrest and ticket the tenant. The landlord's failure to notify the tenants of the infractions was irrelevant because Williams knew his behavior was unacceptable - he was arrested or ticketed during each of the incidents.

      Additionally, the landlord did not waive its right to evict the tenants by accepting rent after the first incident. The waiver rule didn't apply when an accumulation of violations was needed to justify eviction. If it did, landlords would have to refuse rent while the violations needed to justify an eviction accumulated. Because it was unlikely landlords would refuse to collect rent, they would be encouraged to seek eviction as quickly as possible.

Also see: Parkin v. Fitzgerald, 240 N. W. 2d 828 (19 76).
               Priordale.Mall Investors v. Farrington, 4 11 N. W.2d 582 (1987).