REE Mahtomedi Apartments LLC v. Vivian Marquez Ruiz, et al., Nekiel Bass

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A24-1239

REE Mahtomedi Apartments LLC,
Respondent,

vs.

Vivian Marquez Ruiz, et al.,
Defendants,

Nekiel Bass,
Appellant.

Filed May 12, 2025
Affirmed
Ross, Judge

Washington County District Court
File No. 82-CV-24-3158

Clarice Scarnecchia, Landlord Resource Network, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for
respondent)

Nekiel Bass, Mahtomedi, Minnesota (self-represented appellant)

Considered and decided by Smith, Tracy M., Presiding Judge; Ross , Judge; and
Bratvold, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
ROSS, Judge
REE Mahtomedi Apartments LLC brought an eviction action against tenants Vivian
Ruiz and Nekiel Bass and obtained a writ of recovery of premises and order to vacate after
the district court denied Bass’s motion to stay the writ. Bass now apparently seeks to be
2
rehoused, arguing that the basis for the eviction was improper and that the district court
erred by not granting the tenants relief after improperly failing to stay the writ of recovery.
We conclude that the district court’s basis for entering the eviction judgment was proper
and that the issue of relief is moot. We affirm.
FACTS
REE Mahtomedi Apartments LLC commenced an eviction action in June 2024
against residential tenants Vivian Ruiz and Nekiel Bass based on their alleged nonpayment
of rent. T he district court held a hearing during which the parties agreed to a settlement
that required the tenants to move out by July 31 and pay REE Mahtomedi $9,995 in back
rent and fees. But later that day, and before the district court adopted the settlement into a
written order, Bass filed a document captioned as an “Amended/revised Settlement
agreement” that differed materially from the settlement agreement reached in court. The
purportedly amended agreement would have required the tenants to pay REE Mahtomedi
the same amount of money but not required them to vacate the unit. The tenants did not
represent that REE Mahtomedi ever agreed to the different terms.
The record does not indicate that the district court took immediate action on the
tenants’ post-settlement filing. It instead incorporated the parties’ settlement into an order
that required the tenants to vacate the unit and pay the arrearage by July 31, 2024, and that
provided that, if the tenants breached the agreement, REE Mahtomedi could obtain a writ
of recovery by filing an affidavit of noncompliance.
3
REE Mahtomedi filed an affidavit of noncompliance on August 1, alleging that the
tenants had not moved out or made the payment that the district court had ordered. The
district court entered judgment against the tenants and issued a writ of recovery.
Bass appealed the judgment to this court and moved the district court to stay
execution of the writ pending the appeal. The district court denied the motion to stay,
explaining, “This . . . eviction occurred because of a settlement, not a court decision. Parties
are bound by the settlement agreement.” Bass then filed a motion to review the proposed
stay in this court. But before this court decided the motion, the sheriff evicted the tenants.
About two weeks after the eviction, this court decided Bass’s appellate request to
review the stay decision and remanded the matter to the district court because the district
court had failed to apply Minnesota Statutes section 504B.371 (2022 & Supp. 2023), which
requires a court to stay eviction proceedings during appeal. On remand, the district court
granted Bass’s motion for a stay but observed that the matter was likely moot because the
tenants no longer possessed the unit. Bass and Ruiz then asked the district court to quash
the writ, acknowledging that they no longer possessed the unit but requesting that they be
allowed to re -enter it and pay the unpaid rent to the court. REE Mahtomedi filed
correspondence informing the district court that new occupants had already moved into the
unit and that Mahtomedi could not lawfully remove them. The district court denied the
request to quash the writ, observing that restoring the tenants to the property would require
eviction of the current occupants and that section 504B.371 does not require staying a
completely executed writ.
4
Bass and REE Mahtomedi then filed their appellate briefs addressing the basis for
the eviction and relief.
DECISION
Bass seems to make two principal appeal arguments. Bass first contends that the
district court improperly entered an eviction judgment based on the parties’ settlement
agreement. REE Mahtomedi persuasively counters, arguing that the validity of the
settlement agreement is not properly before us. We generally will consider only issues that
were presented to and considered by the district court. Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580,
582 (Minn. 1988). It is true that Bass had filed a document purportedly amending the
settlement agreement to remove the move-out term. But Bass does not dispute that the
tenants agreed to that term and does not assert that REE Mahtomedi agreed to the
“amended” settlement. To preserve an argument challenging the validity of the actual
settlement, the tenants would have needed to move the district court to vacate the
settlement. Bass does not point to any reference in the record establishing that the tenants
moved the district court to vacate the agreement. Bass has therefore forfeited any
settlement-validity challenge.
Bass next contend s that the district court erred on remand by not returning the
tenants to possession. But that issue is moot. We will dismiss a claim as moot when “an
award of effective relief is no longer possible.” Snell v. Walz, 985 N.W.2d 277, 283 (Minn.
2023) (quotation omitted). Bass was entitled to a stay of the eviction proceedings only
during the pendency of the appeal. See Minn. Stat. § 504B.371, subd. 4 (2024). Because
we now affirm the district court’s eviction judgment, we have resolved Bass’s appeal, and
5
the appeal is no longer pending. We can comprehend no other argument in Bass’s brief to
this court. There is no relief under section 504B.371 that we can grant.
Affirmed.