Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Fritz v. Warthen, 213 N.W.2d 339.

44 citing documents.

Richard Whitman, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
by agreement between the parties but by statutory mandate.” -41 (Minn. 1973); Minn. Stat. § 504B.161, subd.
Matthew Davies, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Fritz v. Warthen , (“a breach of the statutory covenants of habitability may be asserted as a defense in an unlawful detainer action for nonpayment of rent”).
Pebble Creek LLC, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The supreme court endorsed such a
ESA P Portfolio Operating Lessee LLC dba Extended Stay America Suites-Eden Prairie-Valley View Road, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
ESA responded, asserting that Lin did not provide a legitimate basis for withholding rent; Lin “admitted that she ha[d] not paid rent to ESA and ha[d] no defenses to prevent an eviction.”
Pioneer Apartments LLLP, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A district court’s order that a tenant relying on the defense that the landlord breached the covenants of habitability was required to deposit the disputed rent into court was upheld in Fritz v. Warthen
David M. Smith, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
ayment of rent m eant that they no longer met the statutory definition of “residential tenants” and, therefore, they lacked standing to bring the ETRAs; (2) pursuant to general contract principles, tenants’ nonpayment of rent constituted a material breach of the lease, jus tifying landlords’ breach of their statutory covenants of habitability; (3) d 339, 343 (1973) (holding that tenants may assert a breach of the covenants of habitability as a defense to an eviction acti on), landlords can asser
Khamar Abdulle, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
1(a)(1), 1(a)(2); (“These covenants are not made a part of the lease by agreement between the parties but by statutory mandate.”).
State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General Keith Ellison, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“There can be no constructive eviction without a surrender of possession.” 12 (holding abandonment of premises is a prerequisite to the defense of constructive eviction).
Maine Heights LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
James M. Erickson, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Bradley J. Pass, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Wise v. Stonebridge Cmtys., LLC 927 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Wise v. Stonebridge Cmtys., LLC 927 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
*776 Fritz v. Warthen , 298 Minn. 54 , , 340-41 (1973).
Ellis v. Doe 924 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2019
Ellis v. Doe 924 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 2019
298 Minn. 54 , , 343 (1973).
Ellis v. Doe 915 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Ellis v. Doe 915 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Tenant filed an answer stating that he did not owe landlord the amount alleged and asserted a habitability defense pursuant to Fritz v. Warthen , 298 Minn. 54 , arguing that landlord had violated the statutory covenants of habitability under Minn. Stat. § 504B.161 (2016).
Madeline Guminiak, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The tenant “shall be given up to seven days of additional time to pay any rent determined by the court to be due.” Id.; see also Fritz v. Warthen, 298 Minn. 54, 61, (holding that when a tenant withholds rent and claims breach of statutory covenants of habitability as a defense to eviction based on nonpayment of rent, the district court “will order the tenant to pay the rent to be withheld from the landlord into court”).
Stephanie Rush, (A16-0249) v. The Westwood Village Partnership, (A16-0249), and Jerry Plummer, (A16-0250) v. Riverside Apartments of St. … 887 N.W.2d 701 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Stephanie Rush, (A16-0249) v. The Westwood Village Partnership, (A16-0249), and Jerry Plummer, (A16-0250) v. Riverside Apartments of St. … 887 N.W.2d 701 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Fritz v. Warthen, 298 Minn. 54, 56-57, -41 (1973).
Negassi H. Ghebrehiwet v. Khaled Ghneim Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Negassi H. Ghebrehiwet v. Khaled Ghneim Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Fritz v. Warthen, 298 Minn. 54, 56-57, -41 (1973) (referring to the “statutory covenants of habitability” in a prior version of the statute).
Andrew Ellis v. Danielle Thompson, Abdul R. Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Andrew Ellis v. Danielle Thompson, Abdul R. Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Fritz v. Warthen, 298 Minn. 54, 59, see also Parkin v. Fitzgerald, 307 Minn. 423, 427- 5 28, (stating that a landlord’s breach of the implied statutory covenant of habitability may justify the tenant’s withholding rent); Meyer v. Parkin, 350 N.W
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Northeast Concrete Products, LLC 756 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Northeast Concrete Products, LLC 756 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
See Fritz v. Warthen, 298 Minn. 54, 61 , (observing that a district court has inherent power to release funds paid into court).
Fraser v. Fraser 642 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Fraser v. Fraser 642 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See Fritz v. Warthen, 298 Minn. 54, 58-59 , -42 (1973) (discussing summary nature of unlawful detainer proceeding); Dahlberg v. Young, 231 Minn. 60, 65 , (stating “[a]n equitable matter which requires affirmative relief to make it a defense per se cannot be interposed in unlawful-detainer proceedings” (citat
Scroggins v. Solchaga 552 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Scroggins v. Solchaga 552 N.W.2d 248 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Tenant cites Fritz v. Warthen, 298 Minn. 54, 57-58 , to argue that the covenant to pay rent is depen-dant upon the covenant of habitability and that the district court’s conclusion that the property violated the covenant of habitability entitled him to rent abatement.
Love v. Amsler 441 N.W.2d 555 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Love v. Amsler 441 N.W.2d 555 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Fritz v. Warthen, 298 Minn. 54, 58
Priordale Mall Investors v. Farrington 411 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Priordale Mall Investors v. Farrington 411 N.W.2d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
See Fritz v. Warthen, 298 Minn. 54, 61-62
Mac-Du Properties v. LaBresh 392 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Mac-Du Properties v. LaBresh 392 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Fritz v. Wartken, 298 Minn. 54, 58
Meyer v. Parkin 350 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Meyer v. Parkin 350 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
The one Minnesota case interpreting section 504.18 is Fritz v. Warthen, 298 Minn. 54
University Community Properties, Inc. v. Norton 246 N.W.2d 858 Minn. 1976
University Community Properties, Inc. v. Norton 246 N.W.2d 858 Minn. 1976
However, this court has granted discretionary review under Rule 105, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, in the similar case of Fritz v. Warthen, 298 Minn. 54
Parkin v. Fitzgerald 240 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1976
Parkin v. Fitzgerald 240 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1976
Fritz v. Warthen, 298 Minn. 54
City of Bloomington v. Munson 221 N.W.2d 787 Minn. 1974
City of Bloomington v. Munson 221 N.W.2d 787 Minn. 1974
Cf. Fritz v. Warthen, 298 Minn. 54