Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A16-1263

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
Respondent,

vs.

Scott H. Lansing,
Appellant,

John Doe and Mary Roe,
Defendants.

Filed March 13, 2017
Affirmed
Bjorkman, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CV-HC-16-1976

Kalli L. Ostlie, Shapiro & Zielke, LLP, Burnsville, Minnesota (for respondent)

Daniel M. Eaton, Cole W.R. Langsdorf, Christensen Law Office PLLC, Minneapolis,
Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and
Klaphake, Judge.

 Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
BJORKMAN, Judge
On appeal from a post -foreclosure eviction judgment, appellant challenges the
denial of his motion to stay the eviction proceedings. We affirm.
FACTS
In 2004, World Savings Bank was granted a mortgage on property appellant Scott
H. Lansing owned in Minnetonka. In 2008, World Savings Bank changed its name to
Wachovia Mortgage. The following year, Wachovia Mortgage merged with Wells Fargo
Bank Southwest, National Association to form respondent Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association.
Lansing has not made any mortgage payments since November 2009. Wells Fargo
foreclosed by advertisement and purchased the property a t a 2011 sheriff’s sale. Lansing
sued Wells Fargo in Hennepin County District Court, alleging the bank did not strictly
comply with Minnesota ’s foreclosure statutes. Wells Fargo r emoved the case to federal
court, and the parties reached a settlement. Wells Fargo agreed to rescind the sheriff’s sale
and re commence foreclosure proceedings . Lansing agreed to cooperate with the new
foreclosure, vacate the property upon expiration of the redemption period, and waive any
challenge to the new foreclosure proceeding.
Wells Fargo commenced a foreclosure by judicial action in 2013 . Lansing
interposed an answer, and Wells Fargo moved for summary judgment , which the district
court granted. The judgment awarded Wells Fargo a decree of foreclosure, and Wells
Fargo purchased the property at the sheriff’s sale. Lansing appealed, in part arguing that

3
Wells Fargo violated Minn. Stat. § 582.043 (2016), Minnesota’s loss-mitigation statute.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Lansing, No. A14-0868, 2015 WL 506655, at *2-3 (Minn. App.
Feb. 9, 2015). This court affirmed, expressly rejecting Lansing’s loss-mitigation claim:
“There is no evidence in the record indicating that [Lansing] completed or submitted a loss-
mitigation application to Wells Fargo. . . . Because there is no evidence in the record to
support [Lansing’s] claim, there is no evidence to suggest that Wells Fargo was required
to stop foreclosure proceedings.” Id. at *3.
The sheriff’s sale was confirmed by an order entered on February 19, 2015. Two
days prior to the expiration of the six-month redemption period, Lansing sued Wells Fargo
in Hennepin County District Court, alleging loss-mitigation, quiet-title, and slander-of-title
claims. The case was removed to federal court, and Wells Fargo asserted a counterclaim
for breach of contract based on Lansing’s failure to comply with the 2012 settlement
agreement. See Lansing v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , No. 15-CV-03530 MJD/JSM, 2016
WL 3390400, at *5 (D. Minn. Apr. 25, 2016).
Wells Fargo moved the federal court for judgment on the pleadings. Id. at *6. On
April 25, 2016, a magistrate judge filed a report recommending that Wells Fargo’s motion
be granted, that Lansing’s claims be dismissed and his motion to amend his complaint be
denied, and that Wells Fargo have judgment in its favor on its counterclaim. Id. at *16.
The magistrate judge concluded that res judicata bars Lansing’s loss-mitigation claims and
that his other claims lack evidentiary support. Id. at *13, *15-16. That same day, Wells
Fargo initiated this eviction proceeding, alleging Lansing was holding over the property
after the redemption period expired. In May, Lansing filed a motion to stay the eviction

4
proceedings pending the outcome of the federal case. Wells Fargo opposed the stay request
and moved for summary judgment. The district court conducted a hearing.
On June 17, the federal court issued an order granting judgment on the pleadings in
favor of Wells Fargo. See Lansing v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , No. 15-CV-03530
MJD/JSM, 2016 WL 3406085, at *1 (D. Minn. June 17, 2016). 1 On July 22, the district
court denied Lansing’s motion to stay and granted Wells Fargo’s motion for summary
judgment. Lansing appeals.
D E C I S I O N
I. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lansing’s motion to
stay the eviction proceedings.

We review a district court’s denial of a request to stay eviction proceedings for abuse
of discretion. Bjorklund v. Bjorklund Trucking, Inc. , 753 N.W.2d 312, 317 (Minn. App.
2008), review denied (Minn. Sept. 23, 2008). A district court abuses its discretion when it
declines to stay an eviction action when there is a pending civil claim involving
counterclaims and defenses necessary to a fair determination of the action. Id. at 318-19.
But “[a] party is not entitled to a stay of an eviction proceeding merely because a related
action is pending.” Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Nedashkovskiy , 801 N.W.2d 190,
193 (Minn. App. 2011). Rather, a party must show a case-specific reason why denying the
stay compromises his or her interests. Id. Even if such a showing is made, the district
court has discretion to deny the stay. Id.

1 The federal court also ordered judgment in favor of Wells Fargo’s counterclaim. But
final judgment was not entered because Wells Fargo’s damages had not been determined.
Lansing, 2016 WL 3406085, at *1.

5
Lansing contends that the district court should have stayed the eviction action
because his federal claim was pending and involved counterclaims and defenses necessary
to a fair determination of the eviction action. He further argues that a stay is necessary to
protect his interest in the home, which may fall into disrepair if it is vacant . A nd he
suggested in o ral argument , without citation to legal authority, that his loss -mitigation
claim either constitutes a case -specific reason or eliminates the need to make such a
showing to obtain a stay. We find his arguments unpersuasive.
First, Lansing did not have a pe nding federal claim at the time the district court
granted Wells Fargo’s dispositive motion . The federal district court judge adopted the
magistrate judge’s recommendations in their entirety on June 17, ordering dismissal with
prejudice of Lansing’s claims. Lansing, 2016 WL 3406085, at *1. Wells Fargo notified
the district court of the dismissal before the court ruled on the parties’ motions. The
dismissed federal action does not provide a case-specific reason to stay the eviction action.
Second, this court previously rejected the claims Lansing advanced in federal court.
See Lansing, 2015 WL 506655, at *3. As noted in the magistrate judge’s report, Lansing’s
federal claims arose out of the same factual circumstances addressed in the 2013
foreclosure action that this court reviewed. And Lansing’s federal complaint refers to the
same loan-modification argument this court rejected for a lack of evidentiary support. See
id.
Third, Lansing’s reliance on our unpublished decision in U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v.
Litterer, No. A15-0988, 2016 WL 363524 (Minn. App. Feb. 1, 2016) , is misplaced .
Unpublished opinions of this court are not precedential. Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3(c)

6
(2016). And Litterer is distinguishable because it involved a pending, related civil matter
in which the dismissal motion of the party seeking eviction had been denied. 2016 WL
363524, at *2. In contrast, Lansing’s related civil matter was no longer pending when the
eviction case came before the district court for decision. Moreover, we noted in Litterer
that we reached our conclusions “[i]n light of the unique facts” of the case, which included
demonstrable and repeated efforts to work with a lender’s loss -mitigation manager, the
lender’s apparent failure to communicate esse ntial information about appellants’ loan -
modification request, and determinations by state and federal courts “that the equities
favor[ed]” appellants. Id. at *1-2, *4-5. The facts of Lansing’s case are not analogous to
Litterer’s unique facts; Litterer is not persuasive.
In sum, Lansing did not have a pending action involving counterclaims and defenses
necessary to a fair determination of the eviction proceedings . And Lansing failed to state
another case-specific reason to stay the eviction proceedings. On this record, we discern
no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying Lansing’s motion to stay the eviction
proceedings.
II. Wells Fargo is entitled to summary judgment.
On appeal from summary judgment, we review de novo whether there are genui ne
issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in applying the law. Dahlin v.
Kroening, 796 N.W.2d 503, 504 (Minn. 2011).
A person entitled to possess real property “may recover possession by eviction
when” a person holds over the property “after the expiration of the time for redemption on
foreclosure of a mortgage. ” Minn. Stat. § 504B.285, subd. 1(a)(1)(ii) (2016). To prevail

7
in an eviction action based on a foreclosed mortgage, a party must show that (1 ) the other
party remains on the real property, (2) the mortgage has been foreclosed, (3) the time for
redemption has expired, and (4) the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the property. See
id. When a foreclosure sale occurs, the sheriff ’s certific ate is the record of sale and
provides prima facie evidence that all the requirements of law have been met and that the
purchaser has obtained title. See Minn. Stat. §§ 580.12, .19 (2016).
Lansing does not deny that he defaulted on the mortgage, that Wells Fargo
purchased the property at the sheriff’s sale, or that a sheriff’s certificate was issued to
Wells Fargo. Nor does he dispute the facts that he did not redeem the property but has
continued to possess it. On this undisputed record, Wells Fargo has satisfied the statutory
requirements to evict Lansing from the property and is entitled to summary judgment.
Affirmed.