Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Duluth v. Brian Lee
852 N.W.2d 683
Minn.2014Background
- HRA eviction action against tenant Lee for nonpayment of rent and $25 monthly late fees under a federal public housing lease.
- Lee resides in Tri-Towers, conventional public housing owned by HRA and subsidized by federal program.
- Lease dated Aug 29, 2011 required $50 rent plus a $25 late fee if paid after the fifth day.
- Lee’s rent delinquency began July 2012 after a $95 repair charge, resulting in three late rent payments and fees totaling $75.
- District court held eight percent cap in Minn. Stat. § 504B.177(a) conflicted with federal law and allowed eviction.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding no conflict between state eight percent cap and federal standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preemption of eight percent cap | Lee argues federal law preempts the cap. | HRA argues no preemption; federal standards allow reasonable fees. | Not preempted; state cap remains. |
| Section 504B.177(b) conflicts | Lee says no conflict; federal standard compatible with eight percent cap. | HRA says paragraph (b) allows federal-compliant fees if conflict exists. | No conflict; federal standard not in opposition. |
| Reasonableness under federal law | Eight percent ceiling is reasonable under federal law. | HRA claims no evidence of unreasonableness. | Court did not address reasonableness; cap stands as nonpreempted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barrientos v. 1801-1825 Morton LLC, 583 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2009) (HUD policy of tenant protection; floor, not ceiling, of protections)
- Fidelity Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141 (U.S. 1982) (preemption framework; due-on-sale regulation preemption discussion)
- Angell v. Angell, 791 N.W.2d 530 (Minn. 2010) (conflict preemption concept in Minnesota statutes)
- Mangold Midwest Co. v. Vill. of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 143 N.W.2d 813 (Minn. 1966) (no conflict exists if provisions are supplementary)
- City of Morris v. Sax Invs., Inc., 749 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2008) (different vs. in conflict interpretation; no conflict when additive)
- In re Estate of Barg, 752 N.W.2d 52 (Minn. 2008) (statutory interpretation; de novo review of law to facts)
- Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud, 813 N.W.2d 68 (Minn. 2012) (interpretation of statutory language and usage)