Jermaine Smith, Appellant,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A20-1522

Jermaine Smith,
Appellant,

vs.

Broadway Flats LLLP,
Respondent.

Filed August 2, 2021
Affirmed
Slieter, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CV-19-19452

Nicholas J. Edlefsen, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)

Morgan Okney, Law Offices of Morgan Okney, LLLP, St. Paul, Minnesota (for
respondent)

Considered and decided by Slieter, Pres iding Judge; Reilly, Judge; and Bryan,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
SLIETER, Judge
In this landlord-tenant dispute, appella nt-tenant challenges the district court’s
finding that appellant damaged his apartmen t beyond “ordinary wear and tear” and the
conclusion that respondent-landlord therefore complied with the language of Minn. Stat.
§ 504B.178 (2020) by withholding a portion of appellant’s s ecurity deposit. Because the
2
amount of appellant’s damage deposit withheld was necessary to restore the apartment to
its pre-tenancy condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted, we affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Jermaine Smith was the first tena nt in a newly-constructed apartment (the
unit) leased from respondent Broadway Flats LLLP from August 2016 to July 2019. After
appellant vacated the unit in July 2019, employees at Broadway Flats conducted a move-
out inspection of the unit which revealed that extensive expense would be required to clean,
refurbish, and restore the unit to its original condition.1 Broadway Flats estimated $700.00
to be the expense for repairs and cleaning of the unit, withheld that amount from appellant’s
$799.00 security deposit, and delivered appellant a check for the balance plus interest.
Appellant commenced this action against Broadway Flats in conciliation court to
recover the withheld portion of his security deposit. After the conciliation court ruled in
favor of Broadway Flats, appellant removed the matter to district court. Following a court
trial, the district court ruled in favor of Br oadway Flats, finding that various parts of the
unit had been damaged beyond “ordinary wear and tear” such that the withholding from
appellant’s security deposit was justified. This appeal follows.
DECISION
Within three weeks after term ination of a tenancy, a landlord must return a security
deposit to a tenant or provide a written statement showing specific reasons for withholding
all or a portion of the deposit. Minn. Stat . § 504B.178, subd. 3(a )(1). A landlord may

1 Though Broadway Flats typically conducted such inspections prior to move-out, they did
not do so in this matter because appellant refused them access to the unit.
3
withhold from the security de posit “amounts reasonably nece ssary . . . to restore the
premises to their condition at th e commencement of the tenancy, ordinary wear and tear
excepted.”2 Id., subd. 3(b)(2) (emphasis added). The burden of proving a reason for
withholding, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, is on the landlord. Id., subd. 3(c).
The evidence provided at tr ial and found by the district court as credible, clearly
reflects that the damage (i.e. “wear and tear”) to the unit was not “ordinary” and that it was
beyond the damage typically encountered in a unit upon move-out. These findings of fact
“shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01. “To conclude
that findings of fact are clearly erroneous [appe llate courts] must be left with the definite
and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” See Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish
Co., 832 N.W.2d 790, 797 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted). Appellant argues the district
court’s findings were clearly erroneous. We disagree.
The testimony most influen tial to the district court among the four management-
company employees who testified was that of the Broadway Flats property manager. The
property manager indicated that he had been one of two individual s—the other being the
building maintenance supervisor, who also te stified—to conduct the move-out inspection

2 Appellant, in order to “ascertain and effectuate the intention of the Legislature” regarding
the language in section 504B.178, invites th is court to “apply rules of [statutory]
construction” to this statute. See Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud, 813 N.W.2d 68, 72 (Minn.
2012) (explaining general rules and purpose of statutory interp retation). We decline this
invitation. The statute plai nly and unambiguously provides that, for a withholding of
damage deposit to be justif ied, any damage (or “wear and tear”) must be beyond
“ordinary.” Minn. Stat. § 504B.178, subd. 3(b); see also Current Tech. Concepts, Inc. v.
Irie Enter., Inc., 530 N.W.2d 539, 543 (Minn. 1995) (“When the language of a statute, so
construed, is not ambiguous, a court must apply its plain meaning.”).
4
of the unit. The property manager took the photographs of the apartment condition upon
move-out and he was in charge of calculating the withholding of appellant’s deposit. The
district court explicitly found the property manager’s testimony to be “credible” and found
that “[Broadway Flats] ha[d] demonstrated . . . damages with credible testimony and
competent evidence.” The distri ct court relied on such testim ony and exhibits in making
its findings of fact, which incorporated and a ccepted the actual costs as described by the
property manager. Ultimately, the district court found that
[w]hen [appellant] vacated the Unit on August 2, 2019, he
returned the unit with: 1) a damaged and inadequately cleaned
refrigerator; 2) rusted and mo isture damaged bathroom light
fixtures, fire suppression sprinklers, and towel racks;
3) damaged and inadequately cleaned kitchen cabinets; and
4) damaged and inadequately cleaned carpeting.

The district court found that “the total out-of-pocket expenses incurred by [Broadway
Flats] for cleaning and repair of the unit was $1,120.57,” far more than the $700.00 actually
withheld from appellant’s security deposit. The district court found that the $700.00
withholding was proper under section 504B.178 , subdivision 3, whic h may be used to
cover “restora[tion] [of] the premises to their condition at the commencement of the
tenancy, ordinary wear and tear excepted.”
The record supports these findings. Th e property manager described the damages
to the unit, including damage to the kitchen cabinets, refrigerator, bathroom fixtures, and
fire suppression systems, as well as the ge neral state of the unit. Testimony from the
maintenance supervisor corroborated the property manager’s testimony. Broadway Flats
provided the court with photographs of the unit reflecting these damages, as well as records
5
indicating the cost of repair parts for the refrigerator and bathroom fixtures and the cost of
additional third-party cleani ng and painting. Both the property manager and the
maintenance supervisor indicated that these damages were not typical in units upon move-
out—in other words, they were beyond “ordinary wear and tear.” This record supports the
district court’s findings and directs us to the conclusion that those findings were not clearly
erroneous.
Appellant argues that, because the witness testimony was “discredited by
contradictions and bias, a nd uncorroborated by physical evidence,” the photographs
provided were “limited,” and the “receipts of expenditures . . . remain unverified,” the
district court clearly erred. As an example of this claimed error, appellant points to a
confrontation between the prop erty manager and appellant during which appellant called
the property manager a “liar” after the pr operty manager failed to make a previously-
scheduled meeting between the two. Appellant’s claimed error fails, as “due regard shall
be given to the opportunity of the [district] court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.”
Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01. Additionally, “[appe llate courts] view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the verdict.” See Rasmussen, 832 N.W.2d at 797. The district court
explicitly found that “[Broadway Flats] ha[d] demonstrated . . . damages with credible
testimony and competent evidence.” (emphasis added). Th e record supports the district
court’s factual findings.
Affirmed.