From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stangel v. Schlegel

Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Nov 3, 2022
No. A22-0921 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2022)

Opinion

A22-0921

11-03-2022

Katie Lynn Stangel, Appellant, v. Dan Schlegel, Respondent.


Cass County District Court File No. 11-CV-22-445

Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Slieter, Judge; and Frisch, Judge.

ORDER OPINION

Jennifer L. Frisch, Judge

BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:

1. In May 2021, appellant Katie Lynn Stangel began renting an apartment from Nabeka Investments LLC. Respondent Dan Schlegel is an officer of Nabeka Investments LLC. In the early months of 2022, Stangel expressed to Schlegel concerns about the property, including frozen windows, a frozen septic vent, an obstructed vent, a clogged floor drain in the laundry room, a deficient water heater, and an unsanitary neighbor. She initiated a rent-escrow action.

2. The district court held a hearing on the rent-escrow action. Schlegel admitted that some issues had existed with the property, but he stated that he had either already remedied the issues or was working toward remedying them. The district court continued the hearing for approximately one month to enable completion of repairs. At the continued hearing, Stangel no longer disputed that repairs needed to be made, but she claimed that she was entitled to partial rent abatement for the entire year she lived at the property and partial heating expenses for the winter months.

A referee heard this matter and made recommendations later adopted by the district court. Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01 ("The findings of a referee, to the extent adopted by the court, shall be considered as the findings of the court.").

3. The district court denied Stangel's request, finding that any alleged violations had been repaired or no longer existed. The district court declined to order rent abatement and transferred to Schlegel the funds Stangel had deposited into escrow. Stangel appeals.

4. A landlord must keep a rented premises in reasonable repair during the term of a lease. Minn. Stat. § 504B.161, subd. 1(a)(2) (2020). A landlord must also ensure that the premises are reasonably energy efficient by installing, for example, weatherstripping and caulk to the windows. Id., subd. 1(a)(3) (2020).

5. A residential tenant may initiate a rent-escrow action to remedy violations of the covenants contained in Minn. Stat. § 504B.161 (2020). Rush v. Westwood Vill. P'ship, 887 N.W.2d 701, 706 (Minn.App. 2016); Minn. Stat. § 504B.385, subd. 1 (2020). If a violation is proven to exist, the district court may order rent abatement. Minn. Stat. § 504B.385, subd. 9(a) (2020)). The decision to order rent abatement is within the discretion of the district court. Minn. Stat. § 504B.385, subd. 9(a) (2020). However, a landlord is not liable if they cure or attempt to cure the property defects within a reasonable time using an effective method of repair. Minn. Stat. § 504B.415(1) (2020) ("It is a sufficient defense to a [rent-escrow action] that: (1) the violation or violations alleged in the complaint do not exist or . . . have been removed or remedied"); Minn. Stat. § 504B.385, subd. 3 (providing that defenses under section 504B.415 are defenses to rent-escrow actions). We review the district court's factual findings for clear error. Rolling Meadows Coop., Inc. v. MacAtee, 904 N.W.2d 920, 924 (Minn.App. 2017). But we review the denial of rent abatement for an abuse of discretion. Scroggins v. Solchaga, 552 N.W.2d 248, 251-52 (Minn.App. 1996), rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 29, 1996).

6. We see no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying the request for rent abatement. Schlegel repaired or remedied the issues identified by Stangel to her satisfaction within the time afforded by the district court. Stangel admitted that the property had been repaired. Because rent abatement is not mandatory and Stangel identifies no abuse of the district court's exercise of discretion, we affirm.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The district court's order is affirmed.

2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.


Summaries of

Stangel v. Schlegel

Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Nov 3, 2022
No. A22-0921 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2022)
Case details for

Stangel v. Schlegel

Case Details

Full title:Katie Lynn Stangel, Appellant, v. Dan Schlegel, Respondent.

Court:Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Date published: Nov 3, 2022

Citations

No. A22-0921 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2022)