Ellis Evans, Respondent,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A21-0083

Ellis Evans,
Respondent,

vs.

Ian Niklas,
Appellant.

Filed October 18, 2021
Affirmed
Larkin, Judge

Ramsey County District Court
File No. 62-CV-20-99

Kip W. Kootz, Kootz Law, PLLC, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)

Ian Niklas, Minneapolis, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Considered and decided by Bratvold, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Jesson,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
LARKIN, Judge
After the termination of a tenancy, appellant-landlord withheld respondent-tenant’s
entire security deposit to pay for lock replacement and cleaning costs. Respondent sued
for the return of her security deposit, and the district court awarded her a portion of the
deposit. Appellant challenges the district court’s findings and alleges other errors in the
proceedings. We affirm.
FACTS
Respondent Ellis Evans and her roommate leased an apartment from pro se
appellant Ian Niklas for a one-year term beginning on July 1, 2018. Evans’s mother co-
signed the lease. The lease prohibited anyone other than Evans and her roommate from
living in the apartment without Niklas’s prior written permission. It also prohibited pets
without Niklas’s prior written permission.
Consistent with the terms of the lease, Evans and her roommate paid a security
deposit of $1,350. Niklas was required to return the security deposit at the end of the
tenancy, less certain deductions authorized in the lease. The lease authorized Niklas to
deduct money from the security deposit for “repairs or cleaning due to any damage beyond
normal wear and tear” and for “replacement of locks and/or lost keys” to the apartment.
Evans and her roommate took possession of the apartment on July 1, 2018. In
August 2018, Niklas, Evans, and Evans’s roommate signed a pet deposit disclosure in
which Niklas agreed that one cat and one small dog could reside in the apartment. Evans
paid an addit ional $300 as a pet deposit and agreed that Niklas could use the security
deposit if the pet deposit was not sufficient to cover any pet damages.
Around March 2019, Evans made an extra set of keys to the apartment for her
boyfriend. She did so without seeking approval from her roommate or Niklas, believing
that it was “an issue of her privacy.” Evans’s roommate notified Niklas because she was
not comfortable with Evans’s boyfriend being in the apartment when Evans was not there.
The relationship between Evans and her roommate soured. As a result, the parties agreed
to terminate the lease one month early, after Niklas found another tenant. The lease ended
on May 31, 2019.
At the end of the lease term, Niklas inspected the apartment for damage. He alleged
that Evans and her roommate left the apartment in poor condition and that there was pet
damage. Niklas refused to return the security deposit and pet deposit , claiming that he
needed the entire amounts to replace the locks and clean the apartment . Evans was not
present during Niklas’s “walk-through” of the apartment because she went on vacation to
“clear her head.” However, Evans’s mother testified that the apartment was clean when
Evans moved out.
In October 2019, Evans sued Niklas in conciliation court, seeking the return of her
portion of the security deposit, as well as additional damages and fees. The conciliation
court determined that Niklas properly withheld a portion of the security deposit “for lock
expense and minor cleaning” and that Evans was entitled to the remainder of the security
deposit. The conciliation court awarded Evans $675 in damages plus $80 in fees.
Niklas removed the case to district court in January 2020. The district court held a
court trial. At trial, Niklas submitted 163 photos and ten videos to support his allegations
regarding damage to the apartment. Evans and her mother asserted that Niklas had falsified
the photos. Niklas also submitted cleaning bills as evidence of his expenses, but he
redacted the addresses of the companies that he had used.
The district court award ed Evans a portion of her security deposit, in addition to
attorney and filing fees. It determined that Niklas was entitled to withhold some of the
security deposit to change the locks and replace the keys because Evans made an extra set
of keys for her boyfriend and did not turn them in. Although Niklas submitted evidence
that the cost to replace the locks was $330, the district court found that $200 was a
reasonable amount. The district court also found that there was some pet-related damage
to the apartment. But the district court determined that Niklas’s claimed expenses of $450
for pet-related cleaning was excessive and that $100 was a reasonable amount. Finally, the
district court found that any cleaning beyond the pet damages was for “normal wear and
tear,” the costs of which could not be withheld from the security deposit. In reaching that
determination, the district court declined to consider receipts that Niklas had submitted
because he redacted the vendors’ addresses and phone numbers and did not present witness
testimony to verify the expenses. In sum, the d istrict court concluded that Niklas was
entitled to withhold $300 from the security deposit and awarded Evans $675 of her $975
security deposit.1
Niklas appealed to this court. This court dismissed the appeal because Niklas did
not pay the filing fee or file a completed certificate as to transcript. Niklas moved to
reinstate the appeal, paid the appellate filing fee, and requested to proceed without court
transcripts. This court reinstated the appeal. Evans did not submit a brief, and this court
ordered the appeal to proceed pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 142.03 (providing that if
respondent fails to file a brief, the case shall be determined on the merits).2

1 It appears that Evans contributed one half of the $1,350 security deposit and the additional
$300 pet deposit, for a total of $975.
2 Evans eventually moved this court to accept a late brief, but this court denied that motion.
DECISION
We begin by setting forth the principles that govern our review in this case .
Although we may make some accommodations for pro se litigants, we generally hold them
to the same standards as attorneys. Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 629 N.W.2d 115, 119 (Minn.
App. 2001). Moreover, error is never presumed on appeal: “ 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). We will not consider assertions of error that are not supported by legal authority
or argument , unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection. State v. Mod .
Recycling, Inc., 558 N.W.2d 770, 772 (Minn. App. 1997). Finally, any error must be
prejudicial for a party to obtain relief on appeal. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 61 (requiring the
court to disregard harmless error). With those principles in mind, we turn to Niklas’s
assignments of error.
I.
We begin with Niklas’s primary contention on appeal: The district court erred in
determining that Evans was entitled to $675 of her security deposit. Within three weeks
after the termination of a tenancy, a landlord must either return the security deposit to the
tenant or provide the tenant with a written statement showing the specific reason for
withholding the security deposit. Minn. Stat. § 504B.178, subd. 3(a)(1) (2020). The
landlord may withhold from the deposit only the amounts reasonably necessary “to remedy
tenant defaults in the payment of rent or of other funds due to the landlord pursuant to an
agreement” or “to restore the premises to their condition at the commencement of the
tenancy, ordinary wear and tear excepted.” Id., subd. 3(b) (2020). The landlord has the
burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, the reason for withh olding the
security deposit. Id., subd. 3(c) (2020).
Niklas argues that he was entitled to withhold the entire security deposit to pay for
lock replacement, cleaning costs for pet-related damages, and other cleaning costs . He
challenges the district court’s factual findings regarding those issues. On appeal from a
court trial, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and give due regard
to the district court’s opportunity to assess witness credibility. Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01. We
view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the verdict” and determine whether “there
is reasonable evidence” in the record to support the findings. Rasmussen v. Two Harbors
Fish Co., 832 N.W.2d 790, 797 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted). A finding is clearly
erroneous when we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
made.” Id. (quotations omitted).
Lock Replacement
Niklas challenges the district court’s finding regarding the cost of lock replacement.
The district court acknowledged Niklas’s evidence that the cost to replace the locks was
$330, but the court found that “a reasonable amount of damages for the costs of replacing
the locks and going to the police station to get the spare keys is $200.”
Although t he district court did not explain how it arrived at the $200 figure, it
referenced exhibits that Niklas offered as evidence. Specifically, Niklas sent Evans and
her roommate a letter shortly after they moved out of the apartment , which detailed the
expenses he allegedly incurred for cleaning and repairing the apartment . He listed $330
for “[m]iscellaneous fix -ups and replace locks .” The reference to “[m]iscellaneous fix -
ups” suggests that some of the $330 was used for repairs unrelated to the locks . The
cleaning bills and receipts that Niklas submitted do not explain how much of the $330 was
for “[m]iscellaneous fix-ups” or the nature of th e “[m]iscellaneous fix-ups.” The district
court mentioned the “[m]iscellaneous fix-ups” in finding that the cost to replace the locks
was less than the $330 that Niklas claimed.
As the appellant, Niklas has the burden of showing error. See Loth, 35 N.W.2d at
546. And, he has the burden of providing an adequate record. Mesenbourg v. Mesenbourg,
538 N.W.2d 489, 49 4 (Minn. App. 1995) . Yet he chose not to provide a transcript on
appeal. The lack of a transcript hinders our review, in that we cannot determine whether
Niklas explained his calculations at trial or whether Evans challenged those amounts. See
id. at 492 (“When an appellant fails to provide a transcript, the reviewing court is limited
to deciding whether the [district] court’s conclusions of law are supported by the
findings.”). On this record, which does not include a transcript of the trial in district court,
we are not left with a definite and firm conviction that the distr ict court erred by finding
that the cost of lock replacement was $200.
Cleaning Costs for Pet-Related Damage
Niklas also challenges the district court’s finding regarding the cleaning costs for
pet-related damage. Niklas claimed that the cost of pet-related damage was $450, but the
district court found that amount excessive based on the photos that Niklas submitted. It
determined that a “reasonable amount of damages for pet-related cleanup is $100.”
Niklas argues that it was improper for the district court to reject his claimed cost of
$450 and then to “assign prices after the fact.” At trial, he submitted a document indicating
that he had been billed $450 for “[e]mergency pet cleaning.” However, he redacted the
address and phone number of the vendor. The district court did not rely on the document
because Niklas ’s redaction of the contact information prevented Evans from cross -
examining the vendor and because Niklas did not call any witnesses to verify the cleaning
charges. Essentially, the district court’s decision not to rely on the document that Niklas
submitted was a credibility determination to which we defer. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we are not left with
a definite and firm conviction that the district court erred by finding that the cost of cleaning
pet-related damage was $100.
Other Cleaning Costs
Niklas appears to challenge the district court’s finding that any cleaning beyond pet-
related damages was attributable to normal wear and tear. As was the case with the pet -
related cleaning expenses, Niklas submitted cleaning bills to the district court, but the
district court did not rely on them because the vendors’ contact information had been
redacted. Once again, that decision was a credibility determination to which we defer.
In sum, the district court did not clearly err in its findings limiting Niklas’s retention
of the security deposit to $300.
II.
Niklas makes several other arguments. We discuss them briefly, but none provide
a basis for relief.
Niklas contends that Evans violated the lease by allowing her boyfriend to stay at
the apartment and by making secret copies of the keys. The district court agreed with
Niklas on this issue , and w e have already rejected Niklas’s related assertion of error
regarding the cost of lock replacement.
Niklas objects to the testimony by Evans’s mother that he “doctored” the photos
showing the damage to the apar tment. He insists that those statements were a “direct
slander,” which the judge should not have allowed in the courtroom. The district court
found that Evans’s mother was not credible because she offered no evidence to explain
how Niklas could have fals ified the photos. As a result, it determined that Niklas was
entitled to withhold a portion of the security deposit to pay for pet -related cleaning. We
have already rejected Niklas’s related assertion of error regarding the costs attributable to
pet damage.
Niklas points to the district court’s finding that Evans was not present at the “move-
out walk -through” because she went on vacation to “clear her head.” He argues that
Evans’s absence made the walk-through impossible and created “havoc” and “confusion”
for him. It is unclear how that confusion establishes district court error.
Niklas alleges that Evans threatened him after she moved out of the apartment and
“was stalking the workers who provided invoices.” We construe Niklas’s argument as a
challenge to the district court’s refusal to credit his redacted exhibits. But we have already
determined that the district court’s approach is based on a credibility determination to
which we defer.
Niklas asserts that the district court should not have allowed Evan s’s claim to
proceed because her roommate did not appear in court . According to Niklas, Evans and
her roommate had to bring a joint claim for recovery of the security deposit because they
signed a joint lease, and the district court exhibited bias by proceeding in the roommate’s
absence. Niklas relies on the following lease provision: “Where there is more than one
Tenant executing this Lease, all Tenants are jointly and severally liable for each other’s
acts, omissions and liabilities pursuan t to this Lease.” Niklas does not provide legal
argument or authority establishing that the district court erred by allowing Evans to proceed
with her claim against Niklas individually. Moreover, our review of the limited record
reveals no indication of judicial bias.
Niklas also asserts that Evans’s attorney should not have been allowed to represent
her in this matter because he was under investigation for unethical conduct while this case
was pending. He notes that the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional
Responsibility had petitioned for disciplinary action against Evans’s attorney. But the
Minnesota Supre me Court did not discipline Evan’s attorney until April 2021. In re
Disciplinary Action Against Kootz, No. A21-0352 (Minn. Apr. 29, 2021) (order). Counsel
represented Evans in conciliation court beginning in October 2019, and the district court
trial was held in August 2020. Once again, Niklas does not provide legal argument or
authority supporting his assignment of error.
In sum, Niklas’s other arguments do not establish reversible error.
Affirmed.