CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff sued for wrongful eviction and asked for damages based on the landlord changing the locks to the premises in question.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The only lawful means to dispossess a tenant who has not abandoned nor voluntarily surrendered, but who claims possession and rights adverse to those claimed by landlord, is by resort to judicial process.
The only lawful means to dispossess a tenant who has not abandoned nor voluntarily surrendered but who claims possession adversely to a landlord's claim of breach of a written lease is by resort to judicial process.View Full Point of Law
Issue. There are two issues for review:
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that the tenant did not abandon or surrender the premises.
Whether the trial court erred in finding that the Defendant’s reentry was forcible and wrongful as a matter of law.
Held. Affirmed. The only lawful means to dispossess a tenant who has neither abandoned nor voluntarily surrendered, but who claims possession of the property, is by resort to judicial process.
Minnesota has historically followed the common law rule that a landlord may rightfully use self-help to retake leased premises from a tenant provided that the (1) landlord is legally entitled to possession and (2) landlord’s means of reentry are peaceable.
However there is a growing modern trend holding that self help is never available. This view is founded on the premise that the potential for violent breach of peace inheres in any situation where a landlord attempts by his own means to dispossess a tenant.
Discussion. The court discussed first the historic approach Minnesota had taken with respect to self-help evictions by landlords. However, current trends demonstrate that any form of self-help has the potential to catalyze a violent breach of the peace. The court noted that state statute would allow a judicial proceeding that could have the tenant evicted within three to ten days. The court noted that this was a departure from the historic approach taken, but justified to avoid any future potentially violent encounters between landlords and tenants.