Robert Zeman, Relator,

This opinion will be unpublished and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
A16-1993

Robert Zeman,
Relator,

vs.

City of Minneapolis,
Respondent.

Filed September 18, 2017
Affirmed
Smith, John, Judge*

Minneapolis Department of Regulatory Services

James Heiberg, St. Paul, Minnesota (for relator)

Susan L. Segal, Minneapolis City Attorney, Lee C. Wolf, Assistant City Attorney,
Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Hooten, Presiding Judge; Bratvold, Judge; and Smith,
John, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
SMITH, JOHN, Judge
We affirm the revocation of respondent’s rental license because the revocation is
supported by the record.

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

2
FACTS
Relator Robert Zeman, through his company Rori Investments, LLC, owned and
managed a rental property located on Girard Avenue North in Minneapolis with his partner,
Richard Heggemeyer. On December 16, 2014, an incident occurred on one of Zeman’s
other p roperties that qualified for a conduct notice under Minneapolis, Minn., Code of
Ordinances (MCO) § 244.2020 (2016). As a result, Zeman worked with Luther Krueger,
a c rime prevention analyst from the Minneapolis police department, to submit an
acceptable management plan. This management plan would apply to all of Zeman’s
properties.
On August 6, 2015, an incident involving narcotics occurred at Zeman’s Girard
Avenue North property that also qualified for a conduct noti ce. Krueger advised Zeman
that his prior management plan would be a satisfactory management plan for this property
as well.
On March 29, 2016, Krueger asked Zeman for documentation that indicated that the
management plan was being implemented. In response, Krueger received documentation
including background -check results f or tenants that were accepted for residency at the
Girard Avenue North property. After review, Krueger discovered two cases where

3
potential tenants failed the background checks but we re still allowed to sign leases, in
conflict with the accepted management plan. As a result, on May 5, 2016, Krueger
requested that the rental license for the Girard Avenue North property be revoked based on
the violation of the accepted written manageme nt plan, which was a violation of MCO
§ 244.2020(c).
On June 9, 2016, a notice of revocation of rental license was sent to Zeman
informing him that it was recommended that the city council revoke the rental license for
the Girard Avenue North property d ue to a violation of ordinance. On June 28, 2016,
Zeman filed an administrative appeal. Before the hearing, Heggemeyer bought out
Zeman’s interest in the Girard Avenue North property. The hearing was held on August
30, 2016, and as a result of the heari ng, the administrative hearing officer recommended
that Zeman’s rental license for the Girard Avenue North property be revoked. Respondent
City of Minneapolis made the final decision to revoke Zeman’s rental license for the Girard
Avenue North property. Zeman appeals.
D E C I S I O N
A city’s revocation of a rental license is a quasi-judicial decision reviewable through
a writ of certiorari. In re Khan, 804 N.W.2d 132, 136 (Minn. App. 2011). “A city council’s
decision may be modified or reversed if the city violated constitutional provisions,
exceeded its statutory authority, made its decision based on unlawful procedure, acted
arbitrarily or capriciously, made an error of law, or lacked substantial evidence in view of

4
the entire record submitted.” Montella v. City of Ottertail, 633 N.W.2d 86, 88 (Minn. App.
2001) (quotation omitted) . On certiorari review, an appellate court “will uphold the
decision if the lower tribunal furnished any legal and substantial basis for the action taken.”
Staeheli v. City of St. Paul, 732 N.W.2d 298, 303 (Minn. App. 2007) (quotation omitted).
I. The inte rests of justice do not require us to address Zeman’s constitutional
arguments that are raised for the first time on appeal.

Zeman makes a variety of constitutional arguments regarding both himself and his
current and prospective tenants for the first time on appeal. Zeman did not present these
constitutional arguments to the administrative bodies below because they did not pos sess
subject-matter jurisdiction. See Neeland v. Clearwater Mem’l Hosp ., 257 N.W.2d 366,
368 (Minn. 1977) (stating that constitutional challenges cannot be decided by
administrative bodies). We ordinarily do not consider issues raised for the first time on
appeal, even when those issues are challenges to the constitutionality of a statute or
ordinance. State v. Williams , 794 N.W.2d 867, 874 (Minn. 2011). We may choose to
address constitutional issues that were not raised below when the interests of justice require
their consideration and when doing so would not work an unfair surprise on a party. Id.
Here, the interests of justice do not require our consideration of Zeman’s
constitutional arguments. The record regarding Zeman’s arguments is inadequat e. And
Zeman could still bring these arguments to a district court through a declaratory-judgment
action. See Connor v. Chanhassen Twp ., 249 Minn. 205, 209, 81 N.W.2d 789, 793 -94
(1957) (“In a suit to test the validity of a municipal ordinance, this cour t held that a
declaratory judgment action was proper.”). Through that medium, Zeman would be able

5
to present evidence in support of his arguments . Therefore, because Zeman has an
alternative method of presenting his arguments, the interests of justice do not require us to
address them.
II. Zeman received notice of the management plan and its implications.

Zeman next argues that he did not receive a paper copy of the management plan and
did not realize that the consequences of not complying with the plan would be revocation
of his license. But Zeman does not dispute that he viewed the management plan on an
electronic device. And Zeman does not cite any authority for the proposition that he must
have been given a paper copy instead of an electronic version. See Melina v. Chaplin, 327
N.W.2d 19, 20 (Minn. 1982) (stating that issues not adequately briefed on appeal need not
be addressed). Additionally, both MCO § 244.2020(c) and the n otice Zeman received
notice that failure to implement all provisions of the management plan may result in an
action by city council to revoke his license. Therefore, Zeman did receive notice of the
management plan and its implications.
III. The license revocation also affects Rori Investments and Heggemeyer.

Zeman’s final argument is that the city cannot revoke the license of Rori
Investments or Heggemeyer . C ity ordinances show that both owners and persons
responsible for maintenance and management have an in terest in the rental license.
According to MCO § 244.1940(c), “[a]ny action taken under this section shall be instituted
against the rental dwelling license held by the owner(s), licensee and the person designated
by the owner as the person responsible for the maintenance and management of the licensed
property.” Rori Investments is the listed owner of the property and obtained the license for

6
the property. Zeman is the licensee, and Zeman and Heggemeyer are partners in Rori
Investments. Therefore, Rori Investments and Heggemeyer are also affected by the license
revocation.
Affirmed.