This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn . Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (201 4 ). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A15 - 0879 Washington County HRA, Respondent,

vs. Kuohsiou Huang, Appellant. Filed April 4, 2016 Affirmed Ross , Judge Washington County District Court File No. 82

- CV

- 15

- 1515 Ken neth R. Hertz, Hertz Law Office , P.A., Columbia Heights, Minnesota (for respondent) Kuohsiou Huang, Oakdale, Minnesota (pro se appellant) Considered and decided by Ross , Presiding Judge; Johnson , Judge; and Reyes , Judge

. U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N ROSS , Judge The Washington County Housing and Redevelopment Authority, acting as landlord of Kuohsiou Huang ’s apartment, initiated evict ion proceedings after Huang refused a manage r’s entry to inspect and repair the unit

. Huang argues on appeal that his lease is a for ge d document and that his eviction i s therefore unlawful. Because Huang was given2

adequate notice of the eviction and he is not entitled to continue d possession even if the lease is invalid , we affirm. FACTS Kuohsiou Huang and Washington County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) executed a month

- to

- month apartment lease with a 60

- day notice

- of

- termination provision. On January 18, 2015, Huang sent a letter to the HRA’s managing agent stating that he would not consent to a manager’s entering his ap artment to fix his damaged t oilet seat. Two days later, the managing agent, acting on behalf of the HRA, mailed Huang a letter informing him that h is refusal to consent to entry for inspection and repairs violat ed his lease

. Huang re plied w ith a letter sug gesting that actual ownership of the building was in doubt because of fraud relating to its purchase

. On January 29 the agent wrote and hand

- delivered a letter informing Huang that his lease was terminated and that he had until March 31 to vacate the unit under the lease’s 60

- day notice provision. Huang refused to vacate. The HRA filed an unlawful

- detainer complaint seeking Huang’s eviction

. The district court conducted a bench trial at which Huang did not deny receiv ing the notice to vacate. He maintaine d that the lease is invalid because it was forge d

. The district court found that Huang was given proper notice and that the eviction is lawful regardless of whether the lease is valid. Huang appeals.3 D E C I S I O N Huang argues on appeal that his eviction was unlawful because his lease is invalid. An eviction is a summary proceeding to recover possession of real property from a tenant or other occupant. Minn. Stat. § 504B.001, subd. 4 (2014 ). In an eviction proceeding, generally the only i ssue to be determin ed is whether the facts alleged in the complaint are
true. Cimarron Vill. v. Washington , 659 N.W.2d 811, 817 (Minn. App. 2003). On appeal

w e review the district court’s fact

- findings for clear error. Id. Huang argues that the lease is un enforceable as a mere forgery , re nder ing his eviction unlawful. The argument is unavailing. E ven assuming for the sake of our analysis that the lease is invalid, Huang is entitled to no relief from the eviction

. Indeed, he would have more protection under the lease, which has a 60

- day notice provision, than he has without a lease. That is because c ontinued occupation under a n invalid lease creates a tenancy at will. Fisher v. Heller , 174 Minn. 233, 236, 219 N.W. 79, 80 (1928 ). A tenancy at will can be termi nated by either party by written notice. Minn. Stat. § 504B.135(a) (2014). The n otice of termination must be “ at least as long as the interval between the time rent is due.” Id. Because the allegedly invalid lease here ( as well as the apparent oral agreement and practice of the parties) was month ly , the notice period is only 30 days. The 60

- day notice to vacate was therefore more than adequate

. Huang asserted to the district court that a forged lease would bar termination under
t he equitable do ctrine of unclean hands. It is not clear whether he reasserts that argument on appeal, but he has not presented any authority that support s it , and we are aware of none

. Huang also does not explain how a n invalid lease affords him any possessory right in t he4

property, and his possessory right is the focus of the eviction proceeding. Deutsche Bank Nat ’l Trust Co. v. Hanson , 841 N.W.2d 161, 164 (Minn. App. 2014). The district court did
not err by rejecting Huang’s unclean hands defense. Huang argues that th e HRA evicted him in retaliation for his activities that are protected under Minnesota Statutes section 504B.285, subdivision 2 (2014). Best we can surmise, Huang is arguing that his letter questioning the building’s ownership is what prompted his eviction , rendering it retaliatory

. Relying on a redacted mortgage document, Huang suggests vaguely that some sort of fraud tainted th e purchase of the property. His reasoning is not clear, and he never made a retaliation case when he argu ed in the district
court
. Because Huang never presented the defense and it was never con sidered by the district court, the defense is waived. Thiele v. Stich , 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988). We therefore need not consider its merits. We add that a retaliation argument would app ear to have no merit here in any event. A resident can depend on r etaliation a s a defense in an eviction proceeding when he can prove that his occupancy w as terminated because he (1) attempted to enforce his rights under a lease, contract, or law or (2) re ported a health, safety, or building code violation. Minn. Stat. § 504B.285, subd. 2. Huang ’s challenge to the building’s ownership is neither an attempt to enforce his rights under a lease n or a report of a health, safety, or building code violation. Agai n, H uang did not present a retaliation defense in the district court, but it seems that even if he had, the defense would l ack the necessary elements to avoid eviction

. Affirmed.