Reimringer v. Anderson, A19-2045

Decision Date16 June 2021
Docket NumberA19-2045
Citation960 N.W.2d 684
Parties Aaron REIMRINGER, Appellant, v. Bart ANDERSON, Respondent.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

Dean Treftz, Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellant.

Jayne E. Esch, Alex T. Mastellar, Rinke Noonan, Saint Cloud, Minnesota, for respondent.

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Leah M. Tabbert, Katherine Kelly, Assistant Attorneys General, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for amicus curiae State of Minnesota.

OPINION

THISSEN, Justice.

This case concerns the circumstances under which tenants can recover treble damages for ouster under Minn. Stat. § 504B.231 (2020). We must decide whether a landlord who resorts to self-help to remove a tenant from a residential premises automatically acts "in bad faith" under the statute and, if not, under what circumstances does a landlord act in bad faith when unlawfully removing tenants. In other words, we must determine the legal standard for bad faith under Minn. Stat. § 504B.231.

We hold that, to recover treble damages for ouster from a residential premises under Minn. Stat. § 504B.231, the tenant must establish two facts: that a landlord acted (1) unlawfully and (2) in bad faith. To prove bad faith under the statute, a tenant must show that the landlord acted in a dubious or dishonest fashion—in a way that suggests the landlord was acting with some ulterior motive or purpose beyond just a desire to oust the tenant—when unlawfully removing them from a residential premises. We therefore reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand to that court to allow it to address one remaining issue left unaddressed by its decision.

FACTS

Appellant Aaron Reimringer signed a lease on August 1, 2019, to rent a single family house in Monticello from respondent Bart Anderson. The lease provided for a monthly rent of $2,500 and required Reimringer to pay $7,500 (first and last month's rent plus a $2,500 security deposit) "in advance" of moving into the house. Paragraph 22 of the lease specified that, "[i]f [Reimringer] materially breaches this lease, [Anderson] may" bring an unlawful detainer action to evict Reimringer.

Reimringer moved into the house on September 1, 2019, with his partner, S.S., his children, two dogs, and one cat. Anderson did not hand over the keys directly; instead, the previous tenant had left the house unlocked and the keys in the kitchen. Reimringer did not pay the $7,500—or any amount—prior to moving in. At trial, he testified that he and Anderson had an understanding that he would pay the $7,500 "when [he] could."

Anderson learned that Reimringer and his family had moved into the house at some point in early to mid-September 2019.1 He testified that when he visited the house on September 10 or 12, he asked that Reimringer pay the $2,500 security deposit, and Reimringer responded that he needed to withdraw money from his 401(k) to pay the deposit as well as first and last months’ rent. In contrast, Reimringer testified that Anderson did not make any demands for payment until September 30, 2019.

S.S. testified that at approximately 8 p.m. on September 30, Anderson and his girlfriend showed up at the house and asked whether S.S. had a check for payment of rent. When S.S. said no, Anderson's girlfriend told S.S. that she had to leave the house immediately. S.S. called the local sheriff's office and was advised to inform Anderson that he would need to follow the proper procedure to evict the family. Anderson did not speak with the sheriff on the phone.

Reimringer testified that on that same evening he was away from the house and received a text message from Anderson requesting a phone call. During the call, Anderson told Reimringer that he needed to return to the house and either pay the entire $7,500 or vacate the property immediately. Reimringer returned to the house and spoke with Anderson, who upon learning that Reimringer could not pay him, demanded that Reimringer move out of the house by midnight. Reimringer testified that after some back and forth Anderson told him that "you guys need to get your shit and get out" and then "took a step towards" him. Reimringer then agreed to leave the house. S.S. testified that the family had only about a half hour to collect some basic items before leaving.2 Reimringer and his family drove to a nearby hotel, where they stayed for the next several weeks.

Anderson paid for a room at the hotel for Reimringer and his family for three nights. He testified that he did this so the family could "stay until they came up with the money" and move back into the house. Anderson also placed the remainder of Reimringer's personal property in a rented storage container for a period of time until Reimringer was able to pick it up.3

On October 11, 2019, Reimringer filed a verified petition for possession of residential rental property following unlawful removal under Minn. Stat. § 504B.375 (2020), known as a "lockout" petition.4 Reimringer also sought treble damages for ouster under Minn. Stat. § 504B.231. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court dismissed Reimringer's lockout petition and denied his damages claim. In dismissing the lockout petition, the district court concluded that Reimringer was not a "residential tenant" as defined by Minn. Stat. § 504B.001, subd. 12 (2020), and thus could not "recover possession of the premises" pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 504B.375, subd. 1. The district court also found that Anderson did not act in bad faith by removing Reimringer, a requirement to recover treble damages under Minn. Stat. § 504B.231. Specifically, the court reasoned that it could not find bad faith because Anderson paid for three nights in a hotel for Reimringer and his family following the removal and placed Reimringer's personal property in a locked storage container accessible to Reimringer.

The court of appeals affirmed the district court's denial of Reimringer's claim for treble damages under Minn. Stat. § 504B.231.5 Reimringer v. Anderson , No. A19-2045, 2020 WL 5624132, at *4 (Minn. App. Sept. 21, 2020). The court of appeals reviewed the district court's denial of Reimringer's treble damages claim for clear error because "[t]he existence of bad faith is a question of fact." Id. at *3 ; see also Sviggum v. Phillips , 217 Minn. 586, 15 N.W.2d 109, 112 (1944) (interpreting a rent control statute that allowed evictions only if landlord reoccupied the unit themselves in good faith and presenting that issue as one "for the trier of fact to consider"). The court relied on several definitions of bad faith previously articulated by the court of appeals and our court. See Reimringer , 2020 WL 5624132, at *3.

Applying those definitions, the court observed that, while "[t]he evidentiary record is mixed with respect to the issue of bad faith," it contained support for the district court's finding that Anderson did not act in bad faith, as evidenced by his payment for a hotel room for Reimringer's family for three nights and renting a storage container to store the family's personal property. Id. at *3–4. The court noted that, although other facts in the record could support a finding of bad faith, "the existence of evidence contrary to a district court's finding does not mean that the finding is clearly erroneous." Id. at *3. In other words, the court held that the district court's finding was not " ‘manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.’ " Id. (quoting DeCook v. Olmsted Med. Ctr., Inc. , 875 N.W.2d 263, 274 (Minn. 2016) ). Accordingly, the court of appeals affirmed the district court's finding on bad faith. Id. at *4. We granted review.

ANALYSIS

This dispute concerns the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 504B.231, an issue of statutory interpretation which we review de novo. Vill. Lofts at St. Anthony Falls Ass'n v. Hous. Partners III-Lofts, LLC , 937 N.W.2d 430, 435 (Minn. 2020). When interpreting statutes, we attempt "to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature." Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2020). When the plain language of a statute is unambiguous, we follow it. Vill. Lofts , 937 N.W.2d at 435.

A.

We begin with the text of the statute. Id. The relevant language reads:

If a landlord, an agent, or other person acting under the landlord's direction or control unlawfully and in bad faith removes, excludes, or forcibly keeps out a tenant from residential premises, the tenant may recover from the landlord treble damages or $500, whichever is greater, and reasonable attorney's fees.

Minn. Stat. § 504B.231(a) (emphasis added). The plain text of the statute suggests that a successful claim for treble damages requires a showing of both unlawfulness and bad faith when a landlord removes a tenant.

In a context like this, the word "and" serves as a conjunctive link between two distinct elements in a statute or rule. See State v. Nelson , 842 N.W.2d 433, 440–41 (Minn. 2014) ; Lennartson v. Anoka-Hennepin Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 11 , 662 N.W.2d 125, 130 (Minn. 2003) ; Farnam v. Linden Hills Congregational Church , 276 Minn. 84, 149 N.W.2d 689, 696 (1967). Accordingly, the use of "and" in the statute means that the two separate statutory elements—"unlawfully" and "in bad faith"—must both occur to establish a claim for treble damages. See Nelson , 842 N.W.2d at 441 (observing that the use of "and" in the relevant statute "may reasonably require the concurrence of both" elements to show a violation). Stated another way, a tenant seeking treble damages under section 504B.231(a) must prove that the landlord's conduct was both unlawful and in bad faith.

Further, the terms "unlawfully" and "bad faith" require different evidentiary proof. See State v. Strobel , 932 N.W.2d 303, 308 (Minn. 2019) (affording different meanings for two terms used in a statute where the context of the statute made that clear); State v. Townsend , 941 N.W.2d 108, 110 (Minn. 2020) ("Because the meaning of a phrase often depends on how it is being used in the context of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Smith v. Temple Corp.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Court of Appeals
    • August 7, 2023
    ... ... removes them from a residential premises." ... Reimringer v. Anderson , 960 N.W.2d 684, 689 (Minn ... 2021). An ETRA is one of these distinct ... ...
  • In re Mourning
    • United States
    • Minnesota Court of Appeals
    • April 18, 2022
    ...that, absent statutory definition, courts turn to plain meaning of statutory phrase as determined by dictionary definitions); cf. Reimringer, 960 N.W.2d at 690 ("At a level, bad faith can be understood as dishonesty of belief, purpose, or motive." (quotations and citations omitted)). In acc......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT