929 N.W.2d 398
Minn.2019Background
- Olson leased a unit from Central Housing Associates (CHA); he made written complaints to CHA about maintenance and alleged harassment/discrimination against his daughter.
- CHA served a notice terminating Olson’s lease early for alleged lease breaches; Olson remained and CHA sued for eviction.
- After receiving the termination notice but before eviction, Olson filed a report with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights; he did not file a housing-inspector complaint or a tenant-remedies complaint before the notice date.
- At trial the jury found Olson materially violated the lease but also found CHA retaliated against him for his good-faith attempts to enforce rights under the lease or law; the district court entered judgment for Olson.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding Minn. Stat. § 504B.441’s retaliation defense applies only where the tenant filed a tenant-remedies complaint, and it declined to recognize a common-law retaliation defense; Olson appealed the statutory and common-law holdings.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed that § 504B.441 does not cover complaints to a landlord but reversed by recognizing a limited common-law retaliation defense protecting good-faith tenant complaints about material violations of law, covenants, or lease terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Minn. Stat. § 504B.441’s phrase “complaint of a violation” covers informal complaints to landlord or only formal court filings or complaints to government agencies | Olson: “Complaint” includes expressions of dissatisfaction to landlord, gov’t, or court; statute ambiguous | CHA: “Complaint” means only a formal court pleading commencing a tenant-remedies action | §504B.441 is ambiguous; court holds it covers complaints filed with government authorities or formal legal complaints but not mere complaints to the landlord |
| Whether Olson could assert a statutory §504B.441 retaliation defense given his pre-termination conduct | Olson: he complained and was retaliated against | CHA: Olson did not file the kind of complaint §504B.441 protects | As a matter of law Olson could not invoke §504B.441 because he did not file the protected type of complaint (no government filing or tenant-remedies complaint before eviction notice) |
| Whether Minnesota common law recognizes a defense to eviction for landlord retaliation against tenant complaints to landlord about material violations | Olson: common law should protect tenants who complain in good faith to landlord about material violations | CHA: courts should not create a new common-law defense where statutes govern; legislative role | Court recognized a common-law defense: tenants may assert a retaliation defense (burden on tenant by preponderance) for good-faith complaints about material violations of law, covenants, or lease |
| Scope and allocation of burdens when common-law defense asserted | Olson: burden to prove defense by preponderance | CHA: N/A | Court held tenant bears burden to assert and prove common-law retaliation defense by preponderance; statutory 90-day burden-shifting rule inapplicable to this common-law defense |
Key Cases Cited
- Cocchiarella v. Driggs, 884 N.W.2d 621 (Minn. 2016) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud, 853 N.W.2d 713 (Minn. 2014) (use of ordinary meaning and context in statutory interpretation)
- Am. Family Ins. Group v. Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d 273 (Minn. 2000) (construe statutes to give effect to all provisions; read in context)
- City of Golden Valley v. Wiebesick, 899 N.W.2d 152 (Minn. 2017) (public interest in preventing hazardous housing conditions)
- Zeman v. City of Minneapolis, 552 N.W.2d 548 (Minn. 1996) (public welfare considerations in housing law)
- Dukowitz v. Hannon Sec. Servs., 841 N.W.2d 147 (Minn. 2014) (judicial restraint in creating new common-law remedies)
- Phipps v. Clark Oil & Ref. Corp., 408 N.W.2d 569 (Minn. 1987) (circumstances permitting judicial recognition of new common-law rights)