Ellis v. Doe, 924 N.W.2d 258

Ellis (landlord) sued tenant ("John Doe") for nonpayment of rent; tenant deposited two months' rent with court and raised a common-law habitability defense.
Tenant reported multiple defects to Ellis, contacted a city inspector, and the city issued a written code-violation notice requiring numerous repairs.
Housing referee found tenant credible, concluded statutory covenants of habitability were breached, and awarded $250/month retroactive and prospective rent abatement until repairs were completed.
District court affirmed the referee; Court of Appeals affirmed, holding a tenant need not use the rent-escrow statutory procedure before asserting a common-law habitability defense.
Ellis petitioned to the Minnesota Supreme Court arguing the rent-escrow statute (Minn. Stat. § 504B.385) requires written notice and is the exclusive means to pursue habitability claims; the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Ellis)	Defendant's Argument (Tenant)	Held
Whether a tenant must follow the statutory rent-escrow procedures before asserting a common-law habitability defense in an eviction	The rent-escrow statute codified Fritz and is the exclusive or required procedure; written notice and deposit rules apply before asserting habitability defenses	Fritz created a common-law defense that remains available; rent-escrow is an additional, affirmative remedy and does not abrogate the defense	A tenant may assert the common-law habitability defense in eviction proceedings without following rent-escrow procedures; rent-escrow is an additional remedy
Whether written notice is required before raising the Fritz habitability defense in eviction proceedings	Fritz defense should require written notice like the statutory scheme to prevent ambush and protect landlords	Requiring written notice would create a procedural barrier to defending against improper evictions and frustrate statutory and public-policy goals	Court declines to add a written-notice requirement to the Fritz defense (and notes in this case Ellis in fact received notice)

Fritz v. Warthen, 298 Minn. 54, 213 N.W.2d 339 (Minn. 1973) (recognized common-law habitability defense to eviction; rent and habitability covenants are mutually dependent)
Siewert v. Northern States Power Co., 793 N.W.2d 272 (Minn. 2011) (presumption that Legislature does not abrogate common law absent express or necessary implication)
Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc., 820 N.W.2d 826 (Minn. 2012) (statutory interpretation: enforce clear statutory language rather than explore legislative spirit)
Allan v. R.D. Offutt Co., 869 N.W.2d 31 (Minn. 2015) (statutory construction requires giving effect to all provisions)