Hammann v. Ellison
| Decision Date | 26 May 2008 |
| Docket Number | Court File No. 27CV06-13003 |
| Parties | Jerald Alan Hammann, v. Jeffrey Clarence Ellison, a Minnesota resident. Defendant. |
| Court | Minnesota District Court |
1. Plaintiff is the owner of a Calhoun Place condominium; 3131 Excelsior Blvd., Unit #701, Minneapolis, MN 55416.
2. On December 2, 2005, Defendant entered into a written lease agreement with Plaintiff to lease unit #701.
3. The lease was to begin January 2, 2006, with the rent term lasting until June 30, 2006. Monthly rent was to be in the amount of $1,800.00, and due on the first of every month.
4. Plaintiff alleges that the lease agreement contained an option to buy, based on the following language in the lease:
Purchase option- $25,000, comprising of $12,500 cash and a $12,500 promissory note due and payable on date of closing on property or date of vacation of property. Purchase option good until June 30, 2006 at a purchase price of $429,900. If option is exercised $25,000 purchase option will be applied toward purchase price. If option is not exercised, $25,000 is forfeited and lessee no longer has an interest in the property.
5. Defendant occupied the premises and made one rent payment in the amount of $1,800.00.
6. By the terms of the lease agreement, the $25,000.00 for the purchase option was due on the closing date or the date Defendant vacated the property.
7. Defendant never paid Plaintiff $25,000.00 for the option to purchase the property. Defendant did not pay Plaintiff $12,500.00 cash and did not sign a promissory note for $12,500.00.
8. On July 6, 2006, Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking past due rent and the purchase option amount of $25,000.00, plus costs and disbursements. Plaintiff also seeks condo association fees, claiming Defendant agreed to pay for the same. The lease did not contain any reference to condo association fees or costs.
9. On July 7, 2006, Defendant signed a waiver of service of summons in this case.
10. Defendant has not filed an answer.
11. On July 6, 2006, Plaintiff filed an eviction action in housing court. On July 18, 2006, Defendant was evicted by court order for nonpayment of rent. Hennepin County Court File No. 27 CV HC 06-1929.
12. Plaintiff seeks $13,800.00 for past due rent, $25,000.00 for the unpaid purchase option, $2,146.00 for condominium association fines, $150.00 in unpaid utility bills, $200.00 for cleaning the property, $35.00 for creating new keys, and court costs in the amount of $719.00.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. Defendant is in default for want of an answer. Minn. R. Civ. P. 55.01; see also Doe v. Legacy Broadcasting of Minn., Inc., 504 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993) ().
2. Because Plaintiff seeks only a monetary recovery the Court must determine the proper amount owed. Minn. R. Civ. P. 55.01.
3. A party seeking default judgment has the burden of proving every essential element of its claim by a fair preponderance of the evidence, including damages. Hill v. Tischer, 385 N.W.2d 329, 332 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).
4. Defendant occupied the premises from January 2006 to mid-July 2006, and paid one month's rent of $1,800.00. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to six months of unpaid rent for February through July 2006, totaling $10,800.00.
5. Plaintiff is entitled to recover costs of $150.00 in unpaid utility bills, $200.00 for cleaning the property, $35.00 for new keys, and $719.00 in court costs, totaling $1,104.00.
6. The lease agreement shows that it was meant to be the whole bargain between the parties. The lease agreement does not show that it was not meant to be the whole bargain between the parties. "If the written contract...shows that it was not meant to contain the whole bargain between the parties, then parol evidence is admissible to prove a term upon which the writing is silent, and which is not inconsistent with what is written; but, if it shows that the writing was meant to contain the whole bargain between the parties, no parol...
To continue reading
Request your trial