Brian Darr, et al., Respondents,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-1088

Brian Darr, et al.,
Respondents,

vs.

Brian Hilbrands,
Appellant.

Filed February 19, 2019
Affirmed
Reilly, Judge

Ramsey County District Court
File No. 62-HG-CV-18-1175

Brian Hilbrands, New Brighton, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Patricia A. E. Whitney, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Rodenberg, Presiding Judge; Cleary, Chief Judge; and
Reilly, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
REILLY, Judge
Appellant challenges his eviction based on nonpayment of rent. Because appellant
failed to file an answer, appear at the eviction hearing, or offer any evidence to support his
argument, we affirm.

2
FACTS
In October 2014, appellant-tenant Brian Hilbrands a nd respondent-landlord Brian
Darr entered into a lease agreement, which was later converted into a month-to-month lease
after Hilbrands remained in the apartment past the original expiration date. Under the terms
of the lease, rent was due on the first day of each month. If any of the rent balance was left
unpaid, a late fee would apply. Further, a resident would be charged for each returned rent
check or if there were non-sufficient funds (NSF) for direct deposit.
In June 2018, Darr filed an eviction action against Hilbrands, alleging nonpayment
of rent and related fees in the amount of $1 ,659.42. Hilbrands had been charged various
late fees and had checks returned due to NSF with an additional $30 charge. Darr attempted
to serve Hilbrands with copies of the summons and complaint. However, he was unable to
be found despite multiple service attempts.
On June 18, the summons and complaint in the eviction action were posted on
Hillbrands’s front door, alerting him to the eviction hea ring on June 26. The hearing
proceeded on June 26, but Hillbrands failed to attend. The housing court referee
determined that Darr was entitled to the recovery of the property plus any filing fees. The
district court confirmed the referee’s decision and a writ of recovery was issued
immediately.
This appeal follows.

3
D E C I S I O N
An eviction action “merely determines the right to present possession.” Dahlberg
v. Young, 42 N.W.2d 570, 576 (Minn. 1950). The proceedings are summary in nature and
limited in scope. Amresco Residential Mortg. Corp. v. St ange, 631 N.W.2d 444, 445
(Minn. App. 2001). On appeal from an eviction judgment , this court reviews the district
court’s findings of fact for clear error. Minneapolis Cmty. Dev. Agency v. Smallwood, 379
N.W.2d 554, 555 (Minn. App. 1985), review denied (Minn. Feb. 19, 1986). “If there is
reasonable evidence to support the trial court’s findings of fact, a reviewing court should
not disturb those findings.” Fletcher v. St. Paul Pioneer Press, 589 N.W.2d 96, 101 (Minn.
1999).
A landlord may bring an eviction action for nonpayment of rent. Minn. Stat.
§ 504B.291, subd. 1 (2018). Darr filed a complaint, stating that Hilbrands had failed to
pay rent and related fees in the amount of $1,659.42. An eviction hearing was held on June
26, 2018. Despite adequate notice, Hilbrands failed to attend the hearing. The district
court found that the facts alleged in the complaint were true, Hilbrands failed to pay rent,
and Darr was entitled to recovery of the property. Hilbrands challenges the factual findings
of the district court, arguing for the first time on appeal that his rent payments were not
late.
Hilbrands offered no evidence or argument to the district court that contested the
facts alleged in Darr’ s complaint. By failing to appear at the eviction hearing and
submitting no evidence, Hilbrands forfeited for appeal the issue of rent payments . See
Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (stating that “a reviewing court must

4
generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered
by the trial court i n deciding the matter before it” (quotation omitted)) . Moreover, t he
record reflects that there was evidence to support the district court’s findings that Hilbrands
failed to pay r ent. The rental ledger clearly indicates that Hilbrands was significantly
behind on his rent payments. Because the record supports the district court’s findings, the
judgment of recovery was properly granted in favor of Darr.1
Affirmed.

1 Darr contends in his brief that he is entitled to attorney fees on appeal. A party seeking
attorney fees on appeal is required to submit a motion under rule 127. Minn. R. Civ. App.
P. 139.06, subd. 1. Darr did not file a motion for attorney fees. We therefore decline to
award attorney fees on appeal. See Johnson v. Johnson, 627 N.W.2d 359, 364-65 (Minn.
App. 2001) (declining to award attorney fees when party did not request fees by motion),
review denied (Minn. Aug. 15, 2001).