The Community Cares, Respondent,

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A19-1859

The Community Cares,
Respondent,

vs.

Dion Faulkner,
Appellant,

Jane Doe,
Defendant.

Filed August 24, 2020
Affirmed
Worke, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CV-HC-19-4765

The Community Cares, Minneapolis, Minnesota (respondent)

Mary S. Kaczorek, Samuel J. Manning, Mid-Minnesot a Legal Aid, Minneapolis,
Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Jesson, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Hooten,
Judge.
S Y L L A B U S
Agents are authorized to appear in desi gnated housing courts on behalf of business-
entity landlords under Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 603.

2
O P I N I O N
WORKE, Judge
Appellant challenges the denial of his motion to dismiss an eviction action, arguing
that the district court misinterpreted Mi nn. R. Gen. Prac. 603 and the common law by
allowing respondent landlord, a limited liability company, to appear in housing court
represented by an agent rather than a licensed attorney. We affirm.
FACTS
In January 2018, appellant Dion Faulkner signed a residential lease for a unit owned
by respondent The Community Cares. The le ase called for Faulkn er to pay $1,200 per
month in rent. After Faulkner allegedly failed to pay $3,600 in rent, an agent on behalf of
The Community Cares signed and filed an ev iction complaint against him and defendant
Jane Doe. The Community Cares attached to the complaint a power of authority
authorizing the agent to appear on its behalf in housing court.
At the eviction hearing, Faulkner moved to dismiss, arguing that Minn. R. Gen.
Prac. 603 did not authorize an agent to appe ar on behalf of a business-entity landlord and
cited the supreme court’s recent “guidance” on the issue. The referee recommended that
the district court deny Faul kner’s motion to dismiss and find that The Community Cares
proved failure to pay rent. The district court countersigned the referee’s recommended
order and entered judgment accordingly. This appeal followed.
ISSUE
Did the district court err by denying appella nt’s motion to dismiss when an agent
appeared on behalf of a business-entity landlord in housing court?

3
ANALYSIS
Faulkner argues that the district court e rred by allowing a bus iness-entity landlord
to appear through a non-attorney agent in housing court. He contends that the district court
misinterpreted and misapplied Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 603 and the common-law rule requiring
business entities to appear only through counsel. He assert s that The Community Cares
defaulted by failing to appear through an attorney.
Minnesota appellate courts interpret general rules of practice de novo. Sela Invs.
Ltd., L.L.P. v. H.E. , 909 N.W.2d 344, 346 (Minn. App. 2018). Title VII of the General
Rules of Practice for the District Courts, un der which rule 603 falls, is titled, “Housing
Court Rules--Hennepin and Ramsey Counties.” Rule 603 provides:
An unlawful detainer action shall be brought in the
name of the owner of the property or other person entitled to
possession of the premises. No agent shall sue in the agent’s
own name. Any agent suing for a principal shall attach a copy
of the Power of Authority to the complaint at the time of filing.
No person other than a principal or a duly licensed lawyer shall
be allowed to appear in Hous ing Court unless the Power of
Authority is attached to the complaint at the time of filing, and
no person other than a duly licensed lawyer shall be allowed to
appear unless the Power of Aut hority is so attached to the
complaint. An agent or lay advocate may appear without a
written Power of Authority if the party being so represented is
an individual and is also present at the hearing.

This rule applies to all pro ceedings in housing court in Henn epin and Ramsey Counties.
See Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 601 (“In Hennepin and Ramsey Counties, Rules 601 through 612
apply to all proceedings in Housing Court.”).
We disagree with Faulkner’s contention that the district court misinterpreted rule
603. We have interpreted rule 603 to be an exception to the common-law rule that business

4
entities must appear through counsel. See Hinckley Square Assocs. v. Cervene , 871
N.W.2d 426, 429 (Minn. App. 2015) (stating common-law rule that business entities may
only appear through licensed counsel in district court and recognizing that, under rule 603,
“landlords may appear through lay agents in the specialized housing courts of Hennepin
and Ramsey Counties”).1 While Faulkner characterizes this recognition of the exception
to the common-law rule as dicta, one part of the rather narrow holding in Hinckley Square
was that, generally, business entities may not appear except when authorized by court rule.
Id. at 430 (“Because we see no reason to treat li mited partnerships differently from
corporations or limited liability companies in this context, we conclude that limited
partnerships must also be represented by a licensed attorney in pleadings and practice in
district court except when otherwise aut horized by court rule .” (emphasis added)). 2
Because rule 603 allows an agent to appear on behalf of a busines s-entity landlord, and
The Community Cares complied with the requirements of the rule by attaching a power of
authority to the complaint, the district c ourt did not err by denying Faulkner’s motion to
dismiss.

1 We are aware of the long-standing disagree ment over the meaning of rule 603. But the
explicit language of rule 603 is fashioned by the suprem e court, which has inherent
authority to regulate the bar and determine who is authorized to practice law in Minnesota.
See Nicollet Restoration, Inc. v. Turnham, 486 N.W.2d 753, 755 (Minn. 1992) (noting that
under the Minnesota constitution, the power to make rules governing the bar and who may
practice law is vested exclusively in the supreme court). In reaching our decision, we rely
on the plain language of rule 603, which is unambiguous . If the scope of permitted
appearances is to be narrowed, that is a decision for the supreme court.
2 To the extent that the stat ements regarding rule 603 in Hinckley Square are dicta, the
supreme court has recognized that, “[e]ven dictum, if it c ontains an expression of the
opinion of the court, is entitled to considerable weight.” In re Estate of Bush, 224 N.W.2d
489, 501 (Minn. 1974).

5
As further support for his position, Faul kner argues that the district court’s
interpretation of Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 603 was twice rejected through the Minnesota
Supreme Court’s rulemaking process. In advancing this argument, Faulkner relies on the
recommendations of the Minnesota Supreme Court Advisory Comm ittee on the General
Rules of Practice from 2009 and 2018. In addition, he cites a 2019 order of the Minnesota
Supreme Court. Order Promulgating Amendments to the General Rules of Practice for the
District Courts, No. ADM09-8009 (Minn. May 13, 2019).
Neither the recommendations nor the order support Faulkner’s position. The cited
recommendations are not court rules and are in the realm of public policy, which this court
does not create. See LaChapelle v. Mitten , 607 N.W.2d 151, 159 (Minn. App. 2000)
(“Because this court is limited in its function to correcting errors it cannot create public
policy.”), review denied (Minn. May 16, 2000). And, as Faulkner accurately concedes, the
rule remained unchanged because the s upreme court’s order did not adopt the
recommended amendment to rule 603. See Order, No. ADM09-8009.
D E C I S I O N
Minnesota Rule of General Practice 603 a llows a non-attorney agent to appear in
housing court on behalf of a business-entit y landlord. Because The Community Cares
attached a power of authority to the eviction complaint, an agent was authorized to appear
on its behalf in housing court. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s denial of Faulkner’s
motion to dismiss and the entry of judgment against Faulkner.
Affirmed.