 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
W.J. Properties2/12/2002
under Minn. Stat. ch. 327C (2000) is void. Appellants acknowledged in the signed agreement that respondent had a right to bring an unlawful detainer action against them. Eviction proceedings in this case are based on appellants' misrepresentation and subsequent violation of a negotiated term of their agreement, not on an unrelated violation that would trigger independent notice or waiver issues.
Appellants further claim that the trial court's failure to address the Park's revised pet policy deprived it of subject-matter jurisdiction. Appellants provide no authority for this proposition. We do not find that the "new-rule" question has any jurisdictional implication. Appellants' argument that the revised "new rule" entitled them to ten days to remove the rabbits is flawed if for no other reason than that the "new rule" did not affect the Park's rabbit policy. Although management did not consistently enforce it, the prior rule prohibited all pets. The "new rule" also forbids pets, except for a grandfather clause for certain cats and dogs. Neither rule permitted rabbits. Even if the "new rule" marked a change in policy relating to rabbits, appellants are bound by the terms of the agreement they made.
2. Motions for new trial are not appropriate in summary unlawful detainer proceedings.
Unlawful detainer actions are summary proceedings intended to ascertain which party has the right to possess the land in question. Dahlberg v. Young, 231 Minn. 60, 63-64, 42 N.W.2d 570, 573-74 (1950). As such, motions for new trial are inappropriate, as they lead to delays in determining present possessory rights. Id. The trial court appropriately denied appellants' motion for a new trial.
3. The evidence supports the trial court's decision to issue an eviction judgment against appellants.
The standard of review for judgments of restitution is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the trial court's conclusions. Minneapolis Pub. Hous. Auth. v. Greene, 463 N.W.2d 558, 560 (Minn. App. 1990). Respondent presented witnesses at trial who testified that appellants moved the rabbit pen onto adjacent non-Park property, but then frequently brought the rabbits back to their residence and allowed them to run loose on Park property. The evidence sustained the trial court's conclusion that appellants violated the agreement.
4. Motion to Strike.
Respondent argues that we should strike appellant's affidavit as being outside the record. Appellants did not submit this affidavit to the trial court until one week after trial. Since this affidavit was not part of the record before the trial court, this court should not consider it in deciding this case. See Scroggins v. Solchaga, 552 N.W.2d 248, 253 (Minn. App. 1996) ("We * * * do not consider tenant's postjudgment filings because we review the unlawful detainer judgment on the record as it existed when the district court made its decision."), review denied (Minn. Oct. 29, 1996). Respondent's motion to strike is granted.
Affirmed; motion granted.
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.
|
|