887 N.W.2d 701
Minn. Ct. App.2016Background
- HRA owns and manages Westwood Village and Riverside apartments and adopted a bedbug Pest-Infestation Policy that contemplates chemical and heat treatments; tenants must "cooperate" with preparation steps (wash, bag, discard infested items) and HRA pays for chemical-only treatment but not for tenant property or heat treatment costs.
- Chemical-only treatment costs ~$400; heat treatment costs ~$1,100–$1,500; both methods have similar efficacy when units are properly prepared.
- Rush/Domeier reported bedbugs, agreed to chemical treatments, discarded items, and later sought either heat treatment or compensation for discarded property via rent-escrow.
- Plummers reported bedbugs, requested HRA pay for heat treatment (denied), failed to prepare their unit for scheduled chemical treatment (refused to discard furniture), and filed rent-escrow seeking repairs and reimbursement.
- District court found HRA acted within a reasonable time and chose an effective repair method; it rejected tenant claims that HRA must pay for or undertake repair of tenants’ personal property or provide tenants’ preferred method.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does landlord breach "keep premises in reasonable repair" by requiring tenant cooperation and shifting costs for preparing unit and replacing personal property? | Tenants: covenant requires landlord to bear cleanup/replacement costs; lease addendum unlawfully shifts costs to tenants. | HRA: duty limited to condition of leased premises (not tenants’ personal property); cooperation is reasonable and necessary for effective treatment. | Held: Covenant covers premises only, not tenant personal property; HRA did not breach by requiring tenant cooperation or by not paying for discarded property. |
| Does landlord breach "fit for intended use" by choosing chemical-only treatment rather than tenant-preferred heat treatment? | Tenants: chemical-only method prolongs infestation and forces continued exposure; landlord must provide effective remedy of tenant’s choosing. | HRA: both methods equally effective when properly prepared; landlord may select reasonable, effective method and acted within reasonable time. | Held: Landlord may choose an effective repair method offered within a reasonable time; no per se violation for declining tenant’s preferred method. |
Key Cases Cited
- Frost-Benco Elec. Ass’n v. Minn. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 358 N.W.2d 639 (Minn. 1984) (standard for appellate review of legal issues).
- Educ. Minn.-Chisholm v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 695, 662 N.W.2d 139 (Minn. 2003) (statutory construction reviewed de novo).
- Fritz v. Warthen, 213 N.W.2d 339 (Minn. 1973) (statutory covenants of habitability).
- Delamater v. Foreman, 239 N.W. 148 (Minn. 1931) (bedbug infestation can support landlord liability depending on fault).
- City of Minneapolis v. Ellis, 441 N.W.2d 134 (Minn. App. 1989) (landlord cannot contractually shift ultimate responsibility to comply with health/safety laws).
- Meyer v. Parkin, 350 N.W.2d 435 (Minn. App. 1984) (purpose of habitability covenants to assure adequate housing; not strict liability).
- Krueger v. Zeman Constr. Co., 758 N.W.2d 881 (Minn. 2008) (plain-meaning rule in statutory interpretation).
- McSherry v. Heimer, 156 N.W. 130 (Minn. 1916) (definition of "premises").