Washington County CDA, 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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A19-1372

Washington County CDA,
Respondent,

vs.

Evelyn Baker,
Defendant,

Anna Baker,
Appellant.

Filed June 8, 2020
Affirmed
Larkin, Judge

Washington County District Court
File No. 82-CV-19-3764

Christopher T. Kalla, Douglas s E. Turner, Hanbery & Turner, P.A., Minneapolis,
Minnesota (for respondent)

Anna Baker, Cottage Grove, Minnesota (self-represented appellant)

Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Cochran,
Judge.
2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
LARKIN, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court’s issuance of a writ of recovery and order to
vacate a residential rental property. We affirm.
FACTS
On August 1, 2019, respondent Washington County CDA (landlord) filed an
eviction complaint against appellant Anna Baker (Baker) and her mother, Evelyn Baker.
The complaint alleged that the Bakers had failed to vacate rental property owned by
landlord after Baker’s mother, who was the sole tenant listed in the underlying lease
agreement, “entered [into] a Promise to Vacate,” in wh ich she “agreed to vacate the
premises by noon on July 30, 2019.” 1 Landlord a ttached a copy of an “Extension of
Termination of Lease and Promise to Vacate Agreement” to the complaint. The agreement
states that on February 14, 2019, landlord notified Bake r’s mother that her lease would
terminate and that she had to vacate the property by noon on April 30, 2019 , that counsel
for Baker’s mother contacted landlord and negotiated a two-month extension of the date to
vacate, that landlord ultimately agreed to e xtend the date to vacate to July 30, 2019 , and
that Baker’s mother, “with the advice and input of counsel,” agreed to vacate the property

1 Although Baker’s mother was the only tenant identified in the lease, the record indicates
that Baker was living at the property and that her presence was one of the reasons for the
eviction.
3
by July 30, 2019. Baker’s mother and counsel for landlord signed the agreement. Neither
Baker nor Baker’s mother submitted an answer to the eviction complaint.2
On August 21, following an eviction trial, the district court found that landlord had
given the Bakers proper notice to vacate the rental property and that the Bakers had failed
to comply . The district court entered judgment for landlord. On August 29, Baker
appealed the eviction judgment.3
On August 30, the district court stayed issuance of the writ of recovery pending
appeal and scheduled a hearing regarding the appropriate amount of an appeal bond. On
September 17, the district court vacated the stay pending appeal and ordered landlord to
post a bond in the amount of $1,870, reasoning that , under Minn. Stat. § 504B.371, subd.
7 (2018), because the Bakers were holdover tenants, the district court could issue a writ for
recovery of the premises notwithstanding Baker’s appeal if landlord posted a sufficient
bond to pay potential costs and damages. The district court issued a writ of recovery and
order to vacate, which were served on the Bakers on September 26, 2019.
On September 30, Baker moved this court for relief from the district court’s
September 17, 2019 order. On October 1, a special-term panel of this court denied Baker’s
motion. This court also denied Baker’s motion to reconsider its October 1, 2019 order,
reasoning that such a motion was unauthorized. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 140.01 (stating
that no petition for rehearing shall be allowed in the court of appeals).

2 Baker’s participation in the underlying eviction proceeding and this appeal has at all times
been as a self-represented litigant.
3 Baker’s mother did not appeal the eviction judgment.
4
On October 27, Baker moved the district court to either increase landlord’s bond or
allow the Bakers to recover the premises pending appeal. On November 12, the district
court increased the amount of landlord’s bond by $935 per month. On November 19, Baker
moved this court for relief from the district court’s November 12 bond order, arguing that
the amount of the bond was insufficient. On December 3, a special-term panel of this court
denied Baker’s motion and later denied her motion for reconsideration of that decision ,
again noting that such a motion was unauthorized.
D E C I S I O N
Before addressing Baker’s assertions of error, we note the principles that govern
this court’s review. First, “[a] reviewing court must generally consider only those issues
that the record shows were presented and considered by the [district] court in deciding the
matter before it.” Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (quotation omitted).
Although some accommodations may be made for self -represented litigants, they are
generally held to the same standards as attorneys. Fitzgerald v. Fitzge rald, 629 N.W.2d
115, 119 (Minn. App. 2001). Thus, an appellant who was not represented by counsel in
the district court must properly preserve issues for review.
Second, the reco rd on appeal consists of “[t]he documents filed in the [district]
court, the exhibits, and the transcript of the proceedings, if any.” Minn. R. Civ. App. P.
110.01. “It is well settled that an appellate court may not base its decision on matters
outside the record on appeal, and that matters not produced and received in evidence below
may not be considered.” Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., 261 N.W.2d 581, 583 (Minn.
1977). “An appellant has the burden of providing an adequate record for appeal.” Custom
5
Farm Servs., Inc. v. Collins, 238 N.W.2d 608, 609 (Minn. 1976). Baker did not provide a
transcript of the eviction trial. This court therefore cannot resolve any issues that require
a transcript of that trial. See id. (“Because of the absence of a transcript of the district court
proceedings, we cannot consider two of [appellant’s alleged errors].”).
Third, “on appeal error is never presumed. It must be made to appear affirmatively
before there can be reversal. . . . [T]he burden of showing error rests upon the one who
relies upon it.” Loth v. Loth, 35 N.W.2d 542, 546 (Minn. 1949) (quotation omitted). “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.” State v. Modern Recycling, Inc. , 558
N.W.2d 770, 772 (Minn. App. 1997) (quotation omitted).
With these principles in mind, we turn to the issues raised in this appeal.
I.
A landlord may recover possession of rented property 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). When reviewing a district court’s eviction decision, this
court reviews its factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusio ns de novo.
Nationwide Hous. Corp. v. Skoglund , 906 N.W.2d 900, 907 (Minn. App. 2018), review
denied (Minn. Mar. 28, 2018).
Baker generally contends that the district court erred by entering the eviction
judgment for landlord. The majority of Baker’s as sertions of error pertain to Baker’s
6
mother.4 For example, Baker argues that the May 28, 2019 “Agreement to Vacate was
signed under duress [by her mother], by . . . threats from [landlord’s attorney], and [due to]
lack of Competence by [Baker’s mother’s] attorney” and that landlord denied Baker’s
mother a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act and the Minnesota Human
Rights Act.
For the protection of the public, the Minnesota Supreme Court limits the practice of
law to licensed attorneys. In re Conservatorship of Riebel , 625 N.W.2d 480, 481 (Minn.
2001). “Although a person who is not a licensed attorney may represent [herself] in court,
[she] may not represent others.” Id.; see Minn. Stat. § 481.02, subd. 1 (2018) (proscribing
the unauthorized practice of law).
Baker does not cite authority supporting her attempt to raise issues on her mother’s
behalf. Nor does she cite authority that would permit her, as a nonlawyer, to represent her
mother in this appeal. Cf. Riebel, 625 N.W.2d at 48 3 (concluding that a nonlawyer with
the power-of-attorney for a person could not represent that person in court). Because Baker
has failed to establish that she is permitted to present arguments on her mother’s behalf and
we are not aware of authority that allows her to do so, we reject those arguments. And
because Baker has otherwise failed to show that the district court erred in entering
judgment of eviction for landlord, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

4 Many of Baker’s other assertions of error lack supporting legal argument and are
unexplained. For example, Baker discus ses her treatment in a separate child-protection
case involving her children without explaining the relevance of t hose circumstances .
Because Baker has not provided a transcript of the eviction trial, it is unclear whether Baker
explained the relevance of such issues in district court.
7
II.
Baker challenges the district court ’s September 17, 20 19 and November 12, 2019
appeal-bond orders and requests “Reversal/Dismissal” of those orders and “Recovery of
All Costs, plus Damages.”
Once again, Baker moved this court for r elief from those appeal-bond orders. On
October 1, 2019, and December 3, 2019, special -term panels of this court denied Baker’s
motions for relief. This court also denied Baker’s motions for reconsideration.
“No petition for rehearing shall be allowed in the Court of Appeals.” Minn. R. Civ.
App. P. 140.01. That rule forecloses reconsideration of an issue that a special -term panel
has decided prior to considering the merits of an appeal. See In re Estate of Sangren, 504
N.W.2d 786, 788 n.1 (Minn. App . 1993) (declining to consider an issue previously
addressed by this court at special term), review denied (Minn. Oct. 28, 1993). We therefore
do not reconsider this court’s prior special -term orders reviewing the challenged district
court orders.
Affirmed.