Cited by

d 444, 445–46 (Minn. App. 2001) (reviewing an eviction order and affirming the district court’s dismissal of defenses and counterclaims that challenged the mortgage foreclosure because the appellants had alternative procedures available to challenge the foreclosure and title to the property in dispute).

d 444, 444–46 (Minn. App. 2001) (affirming dismissal of counterclaims “related to the underlying mortgage foreclosure” because appellants could “raise their counterclaims and equitable defenses directly in [a] separate, district court proceeding” and, consequently, “there [was] no evident reason to interfere with the sum

-46 (Minn. App. 2001) (affirming dismissal of claims related to underlying foreclosure in eviction action because challenges to the validity of the mortgage or foreclosure process could be raised in a separate proceeding).

We further cited to this court’s in which we affirmed dismissal of counterclaims in an eviction action “because an ‘alternate process’ was available for their resolution,” noting that “a party to such an alternate proceeding could seek to enjoin the prosecution of the eviction action pending determination of its challenges.” Id.

lson, (stating “[w]hile an unlawful detainer action is generally summary in nature, determines only present possessory rights, and usually *358 does not bar subsequent actions involving title or equitable rights of the parties, the counterclaim here could have been tried to a jury” (emphasis added) (citations omitted)); (noting, in eviction proceeding, that “the Minnesota Supreme Court has suggested in dicta that, even though [unlawful-detainer] proceedings are usually summary in nature, a count

-41 (Minn.App.2002) (holding that, if possible, equitable claims and defenses should be litigated in alternate civil action, rather than in summary eviction action); -46 (Minn.App.2001) (same).