Bob Springer, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and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
A18-1645

Bob Springer,
Respondent,

vs.

Amy M. Lopez,
Appellant.

Filed October 14, 2019
Affirmed
Slieter, Judge

Pine County District Court
File No. 58-CV-18-420

Bob Springer, Sandstone, Minnesota (pro se respondent)

Amy Lopez, Sandstone, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Considered and decided by Cleary, Presiding Chief Judge; Reilly, Judge; and
Slieter, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
SLIETER, Judge
In this eviction -judgment appeal, appellant -tenant Amy Lopez challenges the
district court’s eviction order . Because we conclude that the district court did not err in
finding that Lopez breached the lease agreement and that the eviction action was not
retaliatory, we affirm.

2
FACTS
On January 7, 2017, Lopez and Springer entered into a one-year lease for a rental
home owned by Springer in Sandstone, Minnesota. Rent was $865 per month, due by the
end of each month. By the written lease terms, Springer “can enter to inspect or repair
anytime with phone notice.”
Lopez denied Springer access to the rental house since the beginning of the lease .
Lopez also has a large dog that prevented Springer from entering. Springer decided to sell
the rental house, and on June 30, 2018, he posted a notice on the house’s door giving Lopez
30 days to vacate. On July 19, 2018, Lopez filed an emergency-tenant-remedies action
pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 504B.381 (2018)—Lopez prevailed and Springer was ordered to
fix the electrical system in the home within 30 days. Springer attempted to fix the electrical
system, but Lopez would not contact Springer about entering the premises.
On August 15, 2018, Springer filed an eviction complaint. The district court held a
bench trial on August 29, 2018. In a written order, the district court found that Lopez
(1) failed to pay July 2018 rent, (2) breached the lease by disallowing Springer access to
the property, (3) failed to vacate after proper notice, and (4) that Springer’s eviction action
was not retaliatory. This appeal follows.1
D E C I S I O N
In an appeal from a bench trial, “[w]e give the district court’s factual findings great
deference and do not set them aside unless clearly erroneou s.” Porch v. Gen. Motors

1 Springer did not file a brief, and pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. 142.03, the matter will
be determined on the merits.

3
Acceptance Corp., 642 N.W.2d 473, 477 (Minn. App. 2002), review denied (Minn. June
26, 2002). But “we are not bound by and need not give deference to the district court’s
decision on a purely legal issue.” Id. “When reviewing mixed questions of law and fact,
we correct erroneous applications of law, but accord the [district] court discretion in its
ultimate conclusions and review such conclusions under an abuse of discretion standard.”
Id. (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).
I. The district court did not clearly err in finding that Lopez breached the lease
by refusing Springer access to the rental property.

“[A] lease is a form of contract. Unambiguous contract language must be given its
plain and ordinary meaning, an d shall be enforced by court s even if the result is harsh.”
Minneapolis Pub. Hous. Auth. v. Lor, 591 N.W.2d 700, 704 ( Minn. 1999) ( footnotes
omitted). “Absent ambiguity, the interpretation of a contract is a question of law.”
Roemhildt v. Kristall Dev., Inc., 798 N.W.2d 371, 373 (Minn. App. 2011), review denied
(Minn. July 19, 2011). Whether an act constitutes a breach of a contract is a question of
fact. Sitek v. Striker, 764 N.W.2d 585, 593 (Minn. App. 2009), review denied (Minn. July
22, 2009).
The parties’ lease provides that: “Owner can enter to inspect or repair anytime with
phone notice.” The lease thus permits Springer to enter the unit with notice by phone.
Following Lopez’s tenant-remedies action, Springer was ordered to repair electrical
work in the rental home. The district court found that Lopez would not allow Springer and
the electrician into the home to do the repair work and that this constituted a breach of the
lease. This finding is supported by the record.

4
Lopez also challenges the district court’s findings regarding failure to pay rent and
failure to vacate after proper notice. Because we conclude that the district court did not
clearly err in finding Lopez breached the lease, we do not address her other claims.
II. The district court did not clearly err in finding that Springer’s eviction action
was not retaliatory.

Minnesota law “prohibits retaliation for a residential tenant’s complaint of a
violation to a government entity, such as a housing inspector, or commencement of a
formal legal proceeding.” Cent. Hous. Assocs., LP v. Olson, 929 N.W.2d 398, 408 (Minn.
2019) (construing Minn. Stat. § 504B.441 (2018) ). If within 90 days of a tenant’s
complaint, the landlord starts an eviction action , the law presumes that the landlord is
retaliating. Minn. Stat. § 504B.441 (2018). “The burden of proving otherwise is on the
landlord if the eviction or increase of obligations or decrease of services occurs within
90 days after filing the complaint, unless the court finds that the complaint was not made
in good faith.” Id.
On July 19, 2018, Lopez brought a successful emergency -tenant-remedies action.
Lopez argues that Springer’s August 15, 2018 complaint was retaliation for her
emergency-tenant-remedies action.
The district court disagreed. It found that Lopez’s tenant-remedies action was
“prompted” by Springer’s June 30, 201 8 notice to vacate and that the tenant-remedies
action was “an attempt to thwart the landlo rd’s termination of the tenancy ” because “she
makes the first complaint about housing conditions that she has never made before despite
the fact that she alleges the conditions have been present for over a year.” The district

5
court found that Springer testified credibly that he planned to sell the rental house. The
district court’s finding that Springer’s eviction action was not retaliat ory is supported by
the record.2
Affirmed.

2 We note that if the common -law retaliation defense to a residential breach -of-lease
eviction action announced in Cent. Hous. Assocs., 929 N.W.2d at 409, applies to this case,
it would fail for the same reasons as the statutory defense in Minn. Stat. § 504B.441.