848 N.W.2d 238
Minn. Ct. App.2014Background
- HNA Properties filed an eviction against Monica Moore; Moore obtained IFP status and moved to dismiss for failure to file a Power of Authority per Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 603.
- A district court referee dismissed the eviction without prejudice for failure to comply with rule 603.
- Moore moved for statutory costs of $205.50 under Minn. Stat. § 549.02 (split $200 and $5.50 items).
- The referee and district judge denied costs, ruling (1) the $200 statutory cost requires adjudication on the merits, (2) Moore was not a "prevailing party" entitled to $5.50, and (3) any recovery would be paid to court administration due to her IFP status under Minn. Stat. § 563.01, subd. 10.
- On appeal the court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and abuse-of-discretion for prevailing-party determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Moore) | Defendant's Argument (HNA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moore is entitled to $200 under Minn. Stat. § 549.02, subd. 1 upon dismissal | Statute mandates $200 on dismissal; no merits required | Dismissal not on merits so $200 not allowed | Reversed: $200 required on dismissal under plain text |
| Whether Moore is entitled to $5.50 as the "prevailing party" | A party awarded statutory costs should also get the $5.50 item | Prevailing-party item is separate; dismissal on procedural grounds does not make Moore prevailing | Affirmed: Moore not prevailing; $5.50 denied |
| Whether any awarded costs must be paid to court administration because Moore is IFP under Minn. Stat. § 563.01, subd. 10 | Statute applies only to recoveries by settlement or judgment, not statutory costs on dismissal | IFP statute requires payment to court admin regardless | Reversed: § 563.01(10) does not apply to statutory costs awarded on dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Educ. Minn.-Chisholm v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 695, 662 N.W.2d 139 (Minn. 2003) (de novo review for statutory interpretation)
- Brua v. Minn. Joint Underwriting Ass’n, 778 N.W.2d 294 (Minn. 2010) (interpret statute by plain language when unambiguous)
- Goldman v. Greenwood, 748 N.W.2d 279 (Minn. 2008) (conjunction "or" is disjunctive in statutory construction)
- Borchert v. Maloney, 581 N.W.2d 838 (Minn. 1998) (definition and inquiry for "prevailing party")
- Benigni v. Cnty. of St. Louis, 585 N.W.2d 51 (Minn. 1998) (trial court discretion in awarding costs)
- Nieszner v. St. Paul Sch. Dist., 643 N.W.2d 645 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002) (discusses costs when dismissal is for procedural defect)
- Elsenpeter v. St. Michael Mall, Inc., 794 N.W.2d 667 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011) (party must receive relief on the merits to be a prevailing party)
- State v. Kylmanen, 226 N.W. 709 (Minn. 1929) (costs incident to recovery or successful defense)
- Hewitt v. Helms, 482 U.S. 755 (U.S. 1987) (plaintiff must obtain some relief on merits to be prevailing party)