Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sela Investments Ltd., LLP v. H.E.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

March 19, 2018

Sela Investments Ltd., LLP, Appellant,
v.
H.E., Respondent.

         Hennepin County District Court File Nos. 27-CV-HC-10-5440, 27-CV-HC-10-6991

          Christopher T. Kalla, Douglass E. Turner, Hanbery & Turner, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)

          Luke Grundman, Joanna K, Dobson, Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

          Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Rodenberg, Judge; and Smith, Tracy M., Judge.

         SYLLABUS

         A party requesting review of a countersigned housing-court order is not in default within the meaning of Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 611(a) for failure to obtain a transcript within the time period prescribed in Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 611(c).

          OPINION

          SMITH, TRACY M., Judge.

         In these consolidated appeals, appellant-landlord appeals from (1) the housing court's orders granting respondent-tenant's motions for expungement of two eviction-case court files and (2) the district court's order in each case denying review of the expungement order on the ground that landlord had defaulted on its request for review by not obtaining a transcript of the hearing before the referee. Because we conclude that the district court erred in finding default based on failure to obtain a transcript, and in denying review of the expungement orders on that basis, we remand to the district court to reinstate the requests for review.[1]

         FACTS

         In 2010, respondent-tenant H.E. leased an apartment from appellant-landord Sela Investments Ltd., LLP. Over the course of that year, Sela brought two eviction actions against H.E. Both actions were settled, and H.E. moved out of the apartment.

         Two years later, H.E. filed two motions for expungement of an eviction record, one for each eviction action, in the housing-court division of Hennepin County District Court. Sela opposed the motions. A housing-court referee held a hearing, concluded that H.E. had "failed to prove that expungement is warranted under Minn. Stat. § 484.014, " and recommended orders dismissing H.E.'s motions "with prejudice." A district court judge countersigned the referee's recommended orders. H.E. did not appeal.

         In September of 2016, H.E. again filed two motions for expungement of an eviction record, asking the housing court to expunge the same records, this time under the court's inherent authority rather than the statutory expungement provision. The motions were served on Sela in October. Sela did not file any responsive documents. The hearing was set for January 24, 2017.

         On January 18, a housing-court referee, upon review of the file and without a hearing, deemed the motions unopposed under Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 115.06 and recommended orders granting the motions without a hearing. The following day, January 19, a district court judge countersigned the referee's recommended orders.

         On January 24, the scheduled hearing date, Sela appeared in housing court to object to the motions. The same referee agreed with Sela that he had erred in deeming the motions unopposed, but he nevertheless recommended that the expungement motions be granted on the merits. A district court judge countersigned the referee's recommended orders, which were filed the following day, January 25.

         First Requests for Review

         On January 30, Sela filed timely requests for district court review of the January 25 orders granting expungement (the first requests for review). Sela contended that the court erred in considering the expungement petition after a previous request was denied with prejudice. In its filings, Sela indicated that "[n]o transcript is necessary for review of the issues raised . . . . To the extent that a transcript might be necessary, [Sela] requests that said decision be ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.