This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A15-1419 Bool Partners Limited Partnership, Respondent,

vs. Jennifer Lensing, Appellant. Filed May 23, 2016 Affirmed Connolly, Judge Ramsey County District Court File No. 62-HG-CV-15-1208
Douglass E. Turner, Christopher T. Kalla, Donna E. Hanbery, Hanbery & Turner, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent) Nahid Hussein Abuelhassan, Abuelhassan La w PLLC, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Reilly, Presiding Judge; Conn olly, Judge; and Johnson, Judge. U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N CONNOLLY , Judge Appellant challenges the nonrenewal of her lease, arguing that the district court’s findings that respondent, her la ndlord, had a business reason fo r not renewing her lease and2 that the nonrenewal of her lease was not reta liatory were clearly erroneous. Because the record does not indicate that these findi ngs were clearly erroneous, we affirm. FACTS In June 2013, appellant Jenni fer Lensing began to rent an Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 42 tax credit ap artment from respondent Bool Partners Limited Partnership for herself and her three childre n. The one-year lease provided that: (1) rent was due on the first day of each month, (2) a late fee of $50 would be charged af ter the second day of the month, and (3) “any amount (whether fo r rent or other charges) is due when [respondent] asks for it.” In July 2013 and ag ain in August 2013, appe llant’s rent payments were late. Respondent file d an eviction action against her, which was settled by an agreement that appellant woul d pay $2,529 within seven days . Her rent payments were again late in September 2013, November 2013, December 2013 and January 2014. In June 2014, appellant signed another one -year lease, providing that she would pay $918 monthly until the lease expired at the end of May 2015. Her rent was again late, and she agreed to a payment plan whereby she wo uld pay $700 in July, $700 in August, and $1,354 (the remaining $218 of the July paym ent and the August paym ent and the $918 of the September payment) in September. On September 5, 2014, respondent notifie d appellant and other tenants who had not made timely rent payments that there would be no further payment plans and that partial rent payments would no longer be accepted. At this time, respondent made the decision3 not to renew the leases of tenants whos e rent payments continued to be late. 1 Later in September 2014, respondent began a second eviction action against appellant for nonpayment of rent. The court date was set for October 7, 20 14. On October 6, respondent returned appellant’s partial payment pursuant to its Se ptember 5 notice and instructed her to bring full payment to court. On October 7, appell ant entered into a settlement agreement to redeem her tenancy by paying all sums due ($2,270.30) within seven days, which she did. In December 2014, respondent began a third eviction action ag ainst appellant for unpaid

rent. On January 29, 2015, appellant contacted re spondent to discuss her desire to install, at her own expense, hardwood flooring beca use her autistic child and her dog had been urinating on the carpet. She and respondent met on February 12, 2015, to discuss the flooring issue. At the meeting, respondent to ld appellant that insta lling new flooring at her own expense would be unwise because her lease would not be renewed when it expired at the end of May 2015. Responden t also offered to have the carpet cleaned at its expense. The next day, February 13, 2015, appella nt filed a discrimination charge against respondent with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR), alleging that respondent had discrimi nated by failing to accommodate her disabled child. On March 3, 2015, respondent sent appellant a confirmati on of nonrenewal, telling her that she could

1 Appellant argues that this decision was made after respondent learne d appellant had filed the discrimination charge, but both respondent’s property manager and its director of property management testified that the decision not to renew the leases of all tenants whose rent payments were repeatedly late was made in September 2014.4 either (1) send respondent a notic e of vacation before March 13 or (2) expect to receive a notice of nonrenewal from respondent on Marc h 16. Respondent did not receive notice of appellant’s discrimination charge from MDHR until March 17, 2015; the notice was dated March 11, 2015. After receiving the confirmation of nonren ewal, appellant asked respondent for its reasons for not renewing her leas e. Respondent wrote that a ppellant “[had] been late in paying [her] rent 9 times since moving in 6/1/ 2013 and [respondent had] had to file with the court 3 times in regards to nonpayment of rent.” Appellant rejected respondent’s offer of a one-month extension on her l ease, but did not vacate the apartment on May 31, 2015. Respondent began an eviction action. Foll owing a trial, judgment was entered for respondent and appellant was ordered to vacate by August 24, 2015. She did not vacate, and respondent was issued a writ of recovery of premises. The district court then granted appellant’s motion to stay execution of the writ of recovery pending appeal. Appellant filed a notice of appeal; respondent filed a mo tion with this court challenging, under Minn. Stat. § 504B.371, subd. 7 (2014) (providing that , in an action on a lease against a tenant who is holding over, if the landlord gives a b ond, the district court “shall issue a writ for recovery of premises and order to vacate notwithstanding the no tice of appeal”), the district court’s order granting a stay pending appeal. This court reversed the stay order and remanded for the district cour t to apply subdivision 7. Appellant challenges the judgment in the ev iction action, arguing that the district court’s findings that respondent had good caus e for not renewing appellant’s lease and that5 the nonrenewal of her lease was not retaliato ry for her filing a discrimination complaint with MDHR. 2
D E C I S I O N “An eviction proceeding is civil in natu re, and generally the only issue for determination is whether the fact s alleged in the complaint are tr ue. Therefore, our standard of review is whether the district court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous.” Cimarron Vill. v. Washington , 659 N.W.2d 811, 817 (Minn. App. 2003) (citation omitted). 1. Good cause for nonrenewal The parties agree that, under IRC § 42(h)(6)(E)(ii)(I), “the eviction or the termination of tenancy (other th an for good cause) of an existing tenant of any low-income unit” is not permitted. Appellant argues that respondent did not have good cause. The district court concluded that “[ I]n this case, good cause existe d for termination of the lease due to the late payments and multiple evicti on actions being filed against [appellant].” See id. at 817-18 (concluding that, under the good caus e standard, late payments could be relied on as a reason for eviction if the landlord had refused the late paymen ts when they were offered). Respondent did refuse appellant’s la te payments and could rely on her history of late payments and eviction actions as good cause for not renewing her lease.

2 Appellant also raises the issue of “[w]hether the district court erred in ruling for . . . [respondent] by ordering . . . appellant to vacate .” This court has already resolved the issue in its October 8, 2015, order: relying on Minn. Stat. § 504B.3 71, subd. 7, it concluded that “[respondent] is correct that un der the circumstances here, [it] may give a bond and proceed with execution of the writ of recovery.”6 2. Retaliation If a notice to quit is served within 90 days of a tena nt’s “good faith report to a governmental authority of the [l andlord’s] violation of a health, safety, housing, or building code or ordinance,” the burden of proving that the notice to quit was not served in whole or in part for a retaliatory purpose rests on the landlord. Minn. Stat. § 504B.285, subd. 2 (2) (2014). The district cour t found that: (1) respondent d ecided not to renew appellant’s lease because of her history of late payments and eviction actions, (2) respondent made this decision before appellant mentioned her desi re to accommodate her child by installing hardwood flooring, and (3) respondent informed appellant of the decision so she would not spend money on flooring for an apartment she would soon be leaving. Based on these findings, the district court concluded that the nonrenewal of appellant’s lease was not retaliatory. Moreover, appellant was later told in a le tter that the problem with the floor could be addressed either by having her carpet cl eaned at respondent’s expense, or, in the alternative, by her giving re spondent “specific proposals on the flooring material [she] would like to install for the rema ining weeks of [her] tenancy” if she wanted to install new flooring even though her lease would not be renewed. Appellant did not accept either alternative, but the fact that the alternatives were offered pu ts in doubt whether appellant’s report to MDHR was a “ good faith report to a governmental au thority of the [landlord’s] violation of a health, safety, housing, or building code or or dinance.” Minn. Stat. § 504B.285, subd. 2 (2) (emphasis added). In any event, respondent has met its burden of proving both that it had a good cause for its d ecision not to renew appellant’s lease and that7 the act for which the nonrenewal was allege dly retaliating occurred after respondent had decided not to renew her leas e. The district court’s fi ndings on these points were not clearly erroneous. Affirmed.