Amy Sue Denzer, Appellant,

This opinion will be unpublished and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
A18-0645

Amy Sue Denzer,
Appellant,

vs.

Ann Klugness Dolan,
Respondent.

Filed November 26, 2018
Affirmed
Bjorkman, Judge

Ramsey County District Court
File No. 62-HG-CV-18-701

Julie N. Nagorski, DeWitt Mackall Crounse & Moore S.C., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for
appellant)

Tristam O. Hage, New Brighton, Minnesota; and

Clarice R. Scarnecchia, Hage Law PLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Cleary, Chief Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and Rodenberg,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
BJORKMAN, Judge
Appellant-tenant challenges a district court order denying her request for money
damages and attorney fees in her action to recover possession of her residential premises

2
under Minn. Stat. § 504B.375 (2016). Because such remedies are not available in a
summary proceeding to determine the right to present possession, and because appellant
did not show that respondent-landlord acted in bad faith to support an award of damages
or attorney fees under Minn. Stat. § 504B.231(a) (2016), we affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Amy Sue Denzer rented a room in respondent Ann Dolan ’s home on a
month-to-month basis from April 2017 to April 2018. When Dolan returned to the home
just after midnight on April 2, 2018, she notified Denzer that the “whole house smells like
weed” and told Denzer to “leave her house by the morning.” Dolan repeated the request
the next morning. When Denzer returned home later that day, a locksmith was changing
the locks, and Dolan had moved all of Denzer’s belongings into the basement. Denzer took
what she could carry and left. Dolan believed that Denzer had acquiesced to her request to
move out by relinquishing her keys and by asking Dolan to temporarily store a small
quantity of her belongings.
Denzer filed a “Verified Petition For Possession Of Residential Rental Property
Following Unlawful Removal Or Exclusion (Lockout Petition Under Minn. Stat.
§ 504B.375).” In her petition, Denzer requested both a hearing to regain possession of the
rented room and a hearing under the civil ouster statute (Minn. Stat. § 504B.231 (2016)),
to recover “damages, costs, and attorney fees .” On April 5, t he district court issued an
interim order allowing Denzer “to immediately move back into the property” or have
access to remove her belongings, and set the matter for hearing on April 11.

3
During the hearing, both parties testified concerning the circumstances of the
lockout. Denzer also testified to incurring out-of-pocket expenses for housing, lost wages,
a drug test and vehicle rental, moving costs, and an undisclo sed sum for attorney fees at
the rate of $300 per hour. At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court ordered Dolan
to allow Denzer immediate possession of her rented room and reimburse Denzer’s filing
fee. The court otherwise denied the damages claim, explaining on the record that unlawful-
exclusion proceedings under section 504B.375 do not permit broader “tenant remedies,”
such as the recovery of money damages.
On April 23, Denzer wrote a letter to the district court seeking an amended order
awarding damages and attorney fees. The district court denied the request in an amended
order, stating that Denzer did not offer “a detailed itemization of incurred expenses” and
did “not credibly establish that damages justly accrued given the circumstances and her
claim for fees and damages was not supported with credible evidence.” Denzer appeals.
D E C I S I O N
Interpretation of a landlord-tenant statute is a question of law that we review
de novo. Cocchiarella v. Driggs, 884 N.W.2d 621, 624 (Minn. 2016). “When interpreting
a statute, we first look to see whether the statute’s language, on its face, is clear or
ambiguous.” Am. Family Ins. Grp. v. Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d 273, 277 (Minn. 2000). If the
language is clear , we must “interpret the statute’s text according to its plain language.”
Brua v. Minn. Joint Underwriting Ass’n, 778 N.W.2d 294, 300 (Minn. 2010). “We review
the district court’s findings for clear error and in the light most favorable to the district

4
court’s decision, and defer to the district court’s credibility determinations.” Bass v. Equity
Residential Holdings, LLC, 849 N.W.2d 87, 91 (Minn. App. 2014).
Denzer first argues that the district court erred by failing to award her damages and
attorney fees under Minn. Stat. § 504B.375. We disagree. Section 504B.375 is designed
to provide a “summary remedy for residential tenants unlawfully excluded or removed
from rental property.” Minn. Stat. § 504B.375, subd. 5. The residential tenant’s remedy
for unlawful exclusion un der this statute is recovery of the right to possess the rental
premises. Id., subd. 1(a). The statute does not provide for other remedies. Because the
statutory language is clear and free from ambiguity, we must interpret it as drafted. See
Brua, 778 N.W.2d at 300. Denzer is not entitled to recover damages or attorney fees under
section 504B.375. See Mut. Serv. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Midway Massage, Inc., 695 N.W.2d 138,
142 (Minn. App. 2005) (“It is not the pro vince of this court to create a statutory cause of
action not provided for by the legislature.”), review denied (Minn. June 14, 2005).1
Denzer next contends that the district court erred by denying her claim for damages
and attorney fees under Minn. Stat. § 504B.231. We are not persuaded. The civil ouster
statute provides: “If a landlord . . . in bad faith removes, excludes, or forcibly keeps out a
tenant from residential premises, the tenant may recover from the landlord treble damages
or $500, whichever is greater, and reasonable attorney’s fees.” Minn. Stat. § 504B.231(a)

1 The summary nature and limited scope of a section 504B.375 unlawful-exclusion action
parallels the statutory framework of an eviction action, which defines “eviction” as “a
summary court proceeding to remove a tenant or occupant from or otherwise recover
possession of real property by the process of law.” Minn. Stat. § 504B.001, subd. 4 (2016).
See Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v . Hanson, 841 N.W.2d 161, 164 (Minn. App. 2014)
(stating that “[p]arties generally may not litigate related claims in an eviction proceeding”).

5
(emphasis added). Our careful review of the record demonstrates Denzer did not claim or
offer evidence that Dolan acted in bad faith. By its clear terms, section 504B.231(a) does
not afford the remedies Denzer seeks in the absence of bad faith. Moreover, t he district
court’s credibility determinations suggest that Denzer failed to prove up her claimed
damages and attorney fees . See Bass, 849 N.W.2d at 91 (deferring to a di strict court’s
credibility determinations in a landlord-tenant matter). For these reasons, the district court
did not err in rejecting Denzer’s claim under Minn. Stat. § 504B.231.
Affirmed.