Timberland Partners, Inc., 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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A19-0216

Timberland Partners, Inc.,
Respondent,

vs.

Harriet Liedtke,
Appellant.

Filed August 19, 2019
Affirmed
Kalitowski, Judge*

Dakota County District Court
File No. 19AV-CV-18-2764

Malcolm P. Terry, Bernick Lifson, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Harriet M. Liedtke, Burnsville, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Considered and decided by Slieter, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Kalitowski,
Judge.

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

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
KALITOWSKI, Judge
In this eviction-judgment appeal, appellant-tenant argues that (1) the district court
abused its discretion by failing to hear the rent-escrow and eviction actions together; (2) the
termination provision of the lease agreement is ambiguous; and (3) the eviction action was
retaliatory. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant-tenant Harriet M. Liedtke and respondent-landlord Timberland Partners,
Inc. (Timberland) entered into a residential lease agreement with an end date of February
28, 2014. The lease provided that if the tenant remained in the apartment after the end
date, then the tenancy would become month-to-month, which either party could terminate
by giving a written 61-day notice to the other party. On April 5, 2018, Timberland gave
Liedtke written notice that it was terminating her tenancy , requiring her to vacate by June
30. Timberland stated that it decided to terminate the tenancy because Liedtke’s rent was
well below market rate.
In June, Liedtke filed a rent-escrow action against Timberland, alleging numerous
problems including issues with drainage pipes, the garbage disposal, and the laundry room.
In light of previous litigation between the parties, T imberland moved the district court to
declare Liedtke a frivolous litigant and impose sanctions. The district court deemed
Liedtke a frivolous litigant, and Liedtke appealed. The district court stayed the rent-escrow
action pending the frivolous -litigant appeal. While the frivolous -litigant appeal was

3
pending, Timberland filed an eviction complaint based on holding over after notice to quit.
After a three-day hearing, the district court entered judgment of eviction against Liedtke.
D E C I S I O N
I. The district court did not abuse its discretion by hearing the eviction and rent-
escrow actions separately.

Liedtke implies that the district court was required to stay the eviction action until
it could be consolidated with the rent -escrow action, which was stayed pending the
frivolous-litigant appeal. We disagree.
“Generally, whether to stay a proceeding is discretionary with the district court, ”
and we will not alter its decision absent an abuse of that discretion. Fed. Home Loan
Mortg. Corp. v. Nedashkovskiy, 801 N.W.2d 190, 192 (Minn. App. 2011). “[T]he district
court has considerable discretion in scheduling matters and in furthering what it has
identified as the interests of judicial administration and economy.” Rice Park Prop . v.
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, 532 N.W.2d 556, 556 (Minn. 1995). But “when the
counterclaims and defenses are necessary to a fair determination of the eviction action, it
is an abuse of discretion not to grant a stay of the eviction proceedings when an alternate
civil action that involves those counterclaims and defenses is pending.” Nedashkovskiy,
801 N.W.2d at 192 (quotation omitted).
Rent-escrow actions “and eviction actions which involve the same parties must be
consolidated and heard on the date scheduled for the evict ion action.” Minn. Stat.
§ 504B.385, subd. 8 (2018).

4
The district court decided not to consolidate the rent-escrow and eviction actions to
further the interests of judicial administration and economy. The rent-escrow proceedings
were already well underway when the eviction -action complaint was filed four months
later. Moreover, Liedtke’s rent -escrow claims did not need to be decided to evaluate
whether Liedtke held over or Timberland retaliated . Thus, the claims asserted by Liedtke
in the rent -escrow action were not necessary to her defense of the eviction action.
Accordingly, the district court did not ab use its considerable discretion in hearing the
matters separately.
But even if hearing the matters separately was an abuse of discretion , Liedtke has
not shown any prejudice. The mere existence of an error is, by itself, insufficient to require
a grant of relief; appellant must also show that the error prejudiced appellant. See Minn.
R. Civ. P. 61 (re quiring harmless error to be ignored). As Liedtke presented no evidence
that she was prejudiced by the rent-escrow and eviction actions being heard separately, we
conclude that any error is harmless.
II. The termination provision of the residential lease agreement is not ambiguous.

We apply general principles of contract construction to leases. Knight v. McGinity,
868 N.W.2d 298, 300 (Minn. App. 2015). A contract is ambiguous if, judged by its
language alone, it is reasonably susceptible of more than one meaning. Kaeding v.
Auleciems, 886 N.W.2d 658, 666 (Minn. App. 2016). We apply de novo review to the
question of whether a contract is ambiguous. Id.
The lease provides, “When the Lease is month-to-month, management and resident
may terminate the Lease only by giving the other party written notic e equal to the notice

5
period.” (Emphasis added.) Liedtke argues that the word “and” makes the provision
ambiguous as to whether “both the landlord and the tenant have to give notice together, at
once, separately, with or without the consent of the other.” But Minnesota law provides
that “[a] tenancy at will may be terminated by either party by giving notice in writing.”
Minn. Stat. § 504B.135(a) (2018) (emphasis added). And under Liedtke’s interpretation
that both parties need to give notice to terminate the lease, no tenant could ever vacate
without the landlord’s approval. Liedtke’s interpretation is unreasonable because it would
provide an absurd result that contradicts Minnesota law. The only reasonable interpretation
is that either the landlord or the tenant could provide notice to terminate the lease.
Therefore, we conclude the lease is not ambiguous.
III. The eviction action was not retaliatory.

On appeal from an eviction judgment, we review the district court’s factual findings
for clear error. Minneapolis Cmty. Dev. Agency v. Smallwood , 379 N.W.2d 554, 555
(Minn. App. 1985), review denied (Minn. Feb. 19, 1986). “But we rev iew the district
court’s legal conclusions de novo.” Nationwide Hous. Corp. v. Skoglund, 906 N.W.2d 900,
907 (Minn. App. 2018), review denied (Minn. Mar. 28, 2018). We review the record in
the light most favorable to the district court’s decision and defer to its credibility
determinations. Rogers v. Moore, 603 N.W.2d 650, 656 (Minn. 1999).
The landlord entitled to the premises may recover possession by eviction when any
tenant at will holds over after the termination of the tenancy by notice to quit. Minn. Stat.
§ 504B.285, subd. 1(a)(3) (2018). Liedtke was a tenant at will and Timberland provided
notice to quit in accordance with the lease and statutory requirements. Liedtke failed to

6
vacate following the 61 -day notice to quit. Liedtke does not ch allenge the assertion that
she held over after the termination of the tenancy, but instead argues that the eviction action
was retaliatory.
The l egislature has provided two separate retaliation defenses : Minn. Stat.
§§ 504B.285 (2018) and 504B.441 (2018). And the Minnesota Supreme Court recently
recognized a common-law retaliatory-eviction defense in Olson. Cent. Hous. Assocs., LP
v. Olson, ___ N.W.2d ___, ___, 2019 WL 2439728, at *1-2 (Minn. June 12, 2019) . But
the supreme court limited the common-law defense to “residential breach-of-lease eviction
action[s].” Id. at *1. As this eviction action is not for a breach of the lease, the common
law defense does not apply here. Cf. Tereault v. Palmer , 413 N.W.2d 283, 286 (Minn.
App. 1987) (“[T]he task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the
legislature, but it does not fall to this court.”), review denied (Minn. Dec. 18, 1987). Thus,
we address Liedtke’s retaliation defense under each statute.
As recently clarified by the supreme cour t, section 504B.441 provides that a
residential tenant may not be evicted if the eviction is intended as a penalty for the tenant’s
complaint of a violation to a government entity or commencement of a formal legal
proceeding. Olson, 2019 WL 2439728, at *1. “[S]ection 504B.441 constructs a 90 -day
window following the complaint during which the landlord bears the burden of proving the
adverse action was not retaliatory unless the complaint was not made in good faith.” Id. at
*3. Here, the district court found that Timberland’s community manager credibly testified
that the prior litigation and complaints made by Liedtke were not the basis for the notice
to quit. Although Liedtke made many complaints to the city of Burnsville, she did not

7
make a complaint about any violation by Timberland within the 90-day window. And the
district court found that the community manager credibly testified that the city “did not
contact [Timberland] at any time in 2018 prior to the notice to terminate with regard to
complaints made.” We defer to the district court’s determination that the testimony was
credible. After reviewing the record in the light most fa vorable to the district court’s
decision, we conclude that the district court did not err in determ ining that Timberland’s
notice to quit was not intended as a penalty for Liedtke’s complaints to the city.
Under section 504B.285, subd. 2, retaliation is a defense to an eviction action if the
tenant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the te rmination was intended in
whole or in part as a penalty for the tenant’s good faith: (1) attempt to enforce rights under
a lease; or (2) report to a governmental authority of the landlord’s violation of a health,
safety, housing, or building code or ordina nce. Minn. Stat. § 504B.285, subd. 2 . If the
notice to quit was served within 90 days of the tenant’s good -faith action, the landlord
bears the burden of proving that the notice to quit was not served for a retaliatory purpose.
Id. But the retaliatory-eviction defense fails if the tenant’s complaints were not made in
good faith. See id. (requiring tenant’s “good faith” attempt to enforce rights or report to
government authority). And even if the complaints were made in good faith and within the
90-day window, the landlord may still succeed in the eviction action by proving that t he
eviction was not retaliatory. See id.
The district court did not find that any of Liedtke’s complaints were made in good
faith. The district court found that the only complaints Liedtke made within the 90 -day
window were complaints to Timberland about another tenant’s parking spot and noise

8
coming from a different unit. But the district court found no evidence that the noise
complaints were made in good faith because they were never substantiated by anyone.
Moreover, the district court found that the community manager credibly testified that
Liedtke’s complaints were not the basis for the notice to quit. The record supports the
district court’s findings . Liedtke failed to prove that the eviction action was intended in
whole or in part for a good-faith assertion of her rights.
Furthermore, Timberland met its burden to prove that the notice to quit was not
retaliatory. “A nonretaliatory reason is a reason wholly unrelated to and unmotivated by
any good-faith activity on the part of the t enant protected by the statute . . . .” Parkin v.
Fitzgerald, 240 N.W.2d 828, 829 (Minn. 1976). Timberland’s nonretaliatory reason is that
Liedtke’s rent was well below market rate, which the district court found credible. This
purpose is wholly unrelated to an y good -faith activity by Liedtke, and she does not
challenge that her rent was well below market rate. Therefore, we conclude that the district
court did not err in determining that the eviction action was not retaliatory.
Finally, Liedtke also argues that the district court abused its discretion by admitting
into evidence a specific statement that contained hearsay . W e decline to consi der this
argument because appellant failed to provide a transcript of the proceeding. See Minn. R.
Civ. App. 110.02, subd. 1 (appellant has burden to provide a transcript of the proceedings);
Collins v. Waconia Dodge, Inc. , 793 N.W.2d 142, 146 (Minn. App. 2011) (“[A]ppellant
bears the burden of providing a record sufficient to show alleged errors.”), review denied
(Minn. Mar. 15, 2011).
Affirmed.