Pondview Townhomes, 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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A17-1343

Pondview Townhomes,
Respondent,

vs.

Inez Hunter,
Appellant.

Filed March 26, 2018
Affirmed
Cleary, Chief Judge

Washington County District Court
File No. 82-CV-13-647

Christopher T. Kalla, Douglass E. Turne r, Hanbery & Turner, P.A., Minneapolis,
Minnesota (for respondent)

Inez Hunter, St. Paul, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Considered and decided by Bratvold, Pr esiding Judge; Cleary, Chief Judge; and
Florey, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
CLEARY, Chief Judge
Appellant Inez Hunter challenges the dist rict court’s denial of her motion to
expunge her eviction record. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion, we
affirm.
2
FACTS
In early 2011, Hunter entered into a residential lease with respondent Pondview
Townhomes (Pondview) for a townhome unit located in Woodbury. Pondview brought
an eviction action against Hunt er after determining that he r son was living with her as
an “unauthorized occupant.” The parties a nnounced at the eviction hearing that they
had reached a settlement wherein the lease would terminate on January 31, 2013.1 After
Hunter failed to vacate the unit, Pondview filed a second eviction complaint. At the
hearing, the district court ordered Hunter to vacate the unit. Hunter appealed her second
eviction. This court dismissed the appe al after Hunter failed to correct filing
deficiencies.
On May 25, 2017, Hunter filed a motion wi th the district court to expunge her
eviction record. The district court heard and denied the motion on July 24, 2017. This
appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
A district court’s authority to expunge an eviction record is discretionary. See
Minn. Stat. § 484.014, su bd. 2 (2016) (“The court may order expungement . . . .”
(emphasis added)); see also Minn. Stat. § 645.44, subd. 15 (2016) (defining a statute
containing the word “may” as a permissive statute). Accordingly, this court reviews the

1 Hunter denies that she agreed to vacate, but per the September 13, 2017 order of this
court, the underlying eviction judgment is not within the scope of this appeal.

3
denial of an expungement motion for an abuse of discretion. Cf. State v. Whelan, 291
Minn. 83, 87, 189 N.W.2d 17 0, 173-74 (1971) (c iting Minn. Stat. § 645.44, subd. 15)
(holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion grounded
in the court’s discretionary authority). “A di strict court abuses its discretion when its
decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the
record.” State v. Guzman, 892 N.W.2d 801, 810 (Minn. 2017).
Hunter asserts, without articulating furthe r, that the district court’s ruling is the
product of fraud. The district court concl uded that Hunter’s inte rest in expunging her
eviction record did not outweigh the public’s interest in knowing about the record. We
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
A district court may expunge an eviction re cord if it finds that a landlord’s case
is “sufficiently without basis in facts or law, which may include lack of jurisdiction over
the case, that expungement is clearly in the interests of justice and those interests are not
outweighed by the public’s interest in kno wing about the record.” Minn. Stat.
§ 484.014, subd. 2. “An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported
by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered
on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” Schoepke v.
Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519, 187 N.W.2d 133, 135 (1971).
Hunter does not articulate how she believes the district court made unsupported factual
findings or misapplied the law. Because the district court concluded that the public’s
4
interest outweighs the private interest at stake, it properly applied the law and did not
abuse its discretion in denying Hunter’s expungement motion.
Affirmed.