Freweini Sium, 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A22-0690

Freweini Sium,
Respondent,

vs.

Eric Rutherford,
Appellant.

Filed April 3, 2023
Affirmed
Wheelock, Judge

Ramsey County District Court
File No. 62-HG-CV-21-615

Patrick D. Boyle, Law Office of Patrick D. Boyle, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for
respondent)

Eric Rutherford, St. Paul, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Gaïtas, Judge; and Wheelock,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
WHEELOCK, Judge
Residential tenant appeals from an eviction judgment based on nonpayment of rent,
arguing that he was not timely provided landlord’s exhibit and witness lists, the lease
presented to the court was fraudulent, and the referee was biased. Because we discern no
2
abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to receive landlord’s exhibits and no
judicial bias, we affirm.
FACTS
This is an appeal from an eviction judgment based on nonpayment of rent.
Respondent landlord Freweini Sium brought an eviction action against self-represented
appellant tenant Eric Rutherford in October 2021. In response, Rutherford filed a “notice
of motion for extension and counter claim ” and a “notice of motion for dismissal,
expungement, and reparations.” Rutherford claimed in his motions that he had paid rent,
Sium had “forged documents from county assistance to receive funds on behalf of all the
tenants,” and Sium had submitted a forged lease to the court. The district court held an
eviction trial in December 2021. The following summarizes the evidence presented at trial
and the district court’s findings of fact.
Rutherford and Sium entered into a residential lease agreement for a one-year term
beginning on March 1, 2020, and ending on March 1, 2021. Sium testified that
Rutherford’s monthly rent was $850. Sium introduced as an exhibit one page of the lease,
in which the lease duration and monthly rent were set forth, and the district court admitted
the exhibit into evidence over Rutherford’s objection.1
Sium testified that Rutherford failed to pay rent beginning in June 2020. Sium
applied for rent assistance from Ramsey County and received $6,650 to cover Rutherford’s

1 Although Sium testified that the exhibit was “at least” one page of the lease, Rutherford
and the district court refer to the single page as “the lease” in the record. We also refer to
the single-page exhibit as “the lease” in this opinion for purposes of consistency.
3
rent from June 2020 to December 2020. 2 Sium testified that she did not receive any rent
payment from Rutherford or rent assistance from Ramsey County for any month in 2021.
Sium introduced letters addressed to Rutherford from her attorney’s office
demanding past- due rent, and the district court admitted the le tters into evidence over
Rutherford’s objection. Sium testified that Rutherford gave her a $1,700 check for June
and July 2020 rent, but she was unable to cash the check due to insufficient funds in
Rutherford’s account. She introduced this check, and again, the district court admitted the
proffered exhibit into evidence over Rutherford’s objection.
Rutherford testified that the lease he signed indicated that he would pay $500 per
month for rent in addition to a $200 pet fee and $50 air-conditioner rental. He alleged in
his testimony that the lease Sium submitted as evidence was not in his handwriting and did
not list the correct monthly rent amount. Based on his assertion that he paid rent for the
months for which she received rent assistance, Rutherford accused Sium of “double
dipping” and “fraud” for applying for rent assistance from Ramsey County.
The district court asked Rutherford what proof he had that he made rent payments.
Rutherford testified that he had text messages and an email between him and Sium that
acknowledged rent paid, but he did not offer documentation of these alleged
communications to support his testimony. He also claimed that he did not receive receipts
for rent paid from Sium or from Sium’s bank when he deposited rent payments. Rutherford

2 The $6,650 covere d seven months of rent at $850 per month plus seven months of a
$100-per-month late fee.
4
testified that a traumatic brain injury prevented him from remembering the name of Sium’s
bank where he allegedly made the rent payments.
Rutherford offered two checks into evidence. The district court admitted the
exhibits into evidence over Sium’s objection. Rutherford testified that the first check was
for the security deposit in the amount of $850 , and the second check was for prepayment
of three months’ rent in the amount of $2,550. Rutherford maintained that his rent was
$500 per month, and the additional amounts in each check were for pet rent and
air-conditioner rental. The district court took the matter under advisement.
The district court ruled in favor of Sium and entered judgment of recovery on
December 30, 2021. It later denied Rutherford’s posttrial motion to vacate the judgment
under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02(b) and (c) and his motion for dismissal and
expungement.
Rutherford appeals.
DECISION
An eviction action “is a summary proceeding through which an occupant may be
removed from possession of real property by the process of law.” Nationwide Hous. Corp.
v. Skoglund, 906 N.W.2d 900, 904 (Minn. App. 2018), rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 28, 2018);
see also Minn. Stat. § 504B.001, subd. 4 (2022).
3 A landlord may bring an eviction action

3 We cite the most recent version of Minn. Stat. § 504B.001 because it has not been
amended in relevant part. See Interstate Power Co. v. Nobles Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs,
617 N.W.2d 566, 575 (Minn. 2000) (stating that, generally, “appellate courts apply the law
as it exists at the time they rule on a case”). For the same reason, we also cite the current
versions of other statutes cited in this opinion.
5
when a tenant fails to pay rent. Minn. Stat. § 504B.291, subd. 1(a) (2022). The scope of
an eviction proceeding is generally limited to “whether the facts alleged in the complaint
are true.” NY Props., LLC v. Schuette, 977 N.W.2d 862, 865 (Minn. App. 2022) (quotation
omitted); see also Minn. Stat. § 504B.355 (2022).
I. The district court did not abuse its discretion by accepting Sium’s evidentiary
submissions.

Rutherford first argues that the district court abused its discretion by accepting
untimely evidentiary submissions from Sium. Appellate courts review evidentiary rulings
for an abuse of discretion. Kroning v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., 567 N.W.2d 42, 45-46
(Minn. 1997). “In the absence of some indication that the [district] court exercised its
discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to legal usage, the appellate court is bound
by the result.” Id. at 46.
Rutherford appears to base his argument on a misunderstanding of the district
court’s scheduling order. He claims that the district court’s scheduling order required
evidence to be submitted five business days before trial; however, the scheduling order
stated that all exhibits and a list of witnesses had to be submitted online through the
Minnesota Digital Exhibit System (MNDES) by 12:00 p.m. two days before the date of
trial.
Rutherford further claims that Sium submitted her evidence “less than 48 hours
before the hearing,” but Rutherford’s own testimony contradicts this statement. Rutherford
testified during the eviction trial that he received notice of Sium’s evidentiary submissions
via email at 12:40 p.m. on December 13, two days before trial. This notification occurred
6
more than 48 hours before the eviction trial. And there is no evidence in the record that
Sium submitted her evidence via MNDES after the 12:00 p.m. deadline on December 13
in violation of the scheduling order. Therefore, the record shows that Sium timely
submitted her evidence to the district court, and the district court did not abuse its discretion
in admitting the evidence at trial.
Rutherford next asserts that the district court abused its discretion by admitting the
lease into evidence. He argues that the lease violates two statutes because he had never
before seen the lease that Sium offered into evidence, and the lease admitted into evidence
is missing his signature, the date on which it was signed, and the address of his apartment.
Based on our review, we conclude that the lease does not violate either statute. First, Minn.
Stat. § 336.2-201 (2022) is inapposite because it applies to contracts for the sale of goods,
and the lease is not a such a contract. Second, Minn. Stat. § 504B.111 (2022) provides that
a landlord of a residential building with 12 or more residential units must have a written
lease for each rented unit and sets forth specific requirements for a lease subject to the
statute. Although section 504B.111 may be applicable, Rutherford fails to explain how the
lease violates this statute or how that would render the district court’s admission of the
lease into evidence an abuse of its discretion.
Moreover, Rutherford objected to the admission of the lease as an exhibit during the
proceedings, arguing in part that Sium fabricated it. The district court found that
Rutherford’s claim that the lease is fraudulent was not corroborated or credible , and it
credited Sium’s testimony over Rutherford’s about several aspects of the lease. Appellate
courts “review the district court’s findings for clear error . . . and defer to the district court’s
7
credibility determinations.” Bass v. Equity Residential Holdings, LLC, 849 N.W.2d 87, 91
(Minn. App. 2014). Because t he evidence supports the district court’s finding that
Rutherford’s objections to the lease were not corroborated and we do not review the district
court’s credibility determinations, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s
admission of the lease into the record.
II. The district court did not exhibit judicial bias.
Finally, Rutherford argues that the district court referee exhibited judicial bias by
accepting Sium’s evidentiary submissions and rejecting some of Rutherford’s submissions.
Appellate courts presume that a district court judge “has discharged her duties properly.”
Hannon v. State , 752 N.W.2d 518, 522 (Minn. 2008). Furthermore, “[p]revious adverse
rulings by themselves do not demonstrate judicial bias,” but rather, “the record as a whole”
must exhibit judicial bias. Id.
Here, the record does not reflect any judicial bias. The district court referee received
exhibits from both parties into evidence over objection and did not appear to show
preference to either party over the other. Rutherford asserts that he had “proof of rent paid”
that he submitted to the district court and that he “was not allowed to discuss” this evidence
at trial, but his argument fails because no offer of this evidence appears anywhere in the
record.
4 Rutherford also claims that opposing counsel vouched for Sium’s evidence “based
on his 16-year relationship with the presiding referee,” but again, no such statement appears

4 During the eviction trial and the rule 60 motion hearing, Rutherford made multiple
references to text-message and email exchanges between himself and Sium that he claimed
showed he paid rent. However, he did not offer as evidence documents showing the text
messages or emails at any point in the proceedings.
8
in the record. In sum, Rutherford has failed to show that the record demonstrates judicial
bias.
Affirmed.