 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
W.J. Properties2/12/2002
Appellants challenge an eviction judgment and the denial of their motion for a new trial. Because appellants' eviction was properly based on their breach of a negotiated confession of judgment and stipulation for unlawful detainer and because the trial court's denial of the motion for new trial was not error, we affirm. Respondent's motion to strike a document submitted on appeal that was not part of the trial court record is granted.
FACTS
Appellants Ronald and Jodelle Schneider moved into the St. Joseph Mobile Home Park (Park) on November 30, 1999, and began paying rent on December 1, 1999. Although Park rules did not permit pets, then-Park management allowed some residents to keep cats and small dogs as long as they did not bother other residents. Respondent W. J. Properties, Inc. purchased the Park after appellants moved in.
On November 27, 2000, respondent provided appellants with written notification that, pursuant to the terms of Minn. Stat. § 327C.09, subd. 7 (2000), their lease was being terminated in 60 days as a result of their material misstatement concerning their rental history on the rental application.
Minn. Stat. § 327C.09, subd. 7, provides that a park resident may be evicted if
The resident's application for tenancy contained a material misstatement which induced the park owner to approve the applicant as a resident, and the park owner discovers and acts upon the misstatement within one year of the time the resident began paying rent.
Appellants stated on their application that they had never been evicted, when, in fact, they had been subject to at least two unlawful detainer actions.
In response to the eviction notice, counsel for appellants and respondent drafted a confession of judgment and stipulation for unlawful detainer (agreement), which appellants signed on February 8, 2001. In part, the agreement provided that appellants would repair and improve the condition of their property according to a schedule of deadlines and would remove their rabbits and rabbit pen from the Park premises within three days of the signed stipulation. Respondent agreed to stay its unlawful detainer action so long as appellants complied with the conditions of the agreement. If appellants violated the terms of the agreement, the agreement provided that respondent could seek a writ of restitution from the court with 48 hours' notice to appellants' counsel.
On April 2, 2001, respondent notified all Park residents that effective July 1, 2001, it would begin stricter enforcement of the existing "no pet" rule. Residents would not be allowed to have any pets, with limited exceptions. Residents with one cat or dog under 15 pounds could keep their pet, and residents with two pets would be allowed to keep both pets until one pet died or otherwise left the Park.
On April 26, 2001, respondent's counsel saw a leashed rabbit tied to the steps of the appellants' home. Appellants admitted that it was their rabbit. On May 3, 2001, in accordance with the terms of the agreement, respondent's counsel filed an affidavit of default with the court and requested a writ of restitution. Respondent notified appellants on May 4, 2001, that they had to vacate the property by May 6, 2001. When they failed to do so, an eviction summons was issued on May 8, 2001.
Appellants contested the eviction. At trial, respondent presented uncontroverted testimony that, following the agreement, appellants moved the rabbit pen to a location just off the Park premises, but continued to visit the rabbits and bring them back to their home. Park residents testified that the rabbits would often run loose in the Park and
Page 1 2 3 4 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|