Court Opinion

ID: 9686820
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:07:39.372148+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:45:12.732494
License: Public Domain

HARVEY A. HOLTAN, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. Even though Bjur entered under a writ from the unlawful de-tainer court, he did so at the risk the court would ultimately find his title invalid. Because Bjur interfered with the Burgmeiers’ beneficial rights to use their property, they now have a claim in trespass to recover mesne profits.
The district court and the majority invoke collateral estoppel arising out of the unlawful detainer action. This application is misplaced as the issues determined in an unlawful detainer action and in a trespass action are not the same. See Cole v. Paulson, 380 N.W.2d 215, 218 (Minn.App.1986). An unlawful detainer action merely determines who has the better right to possession of the property; it does not determine who has the underlying ownership interest in the property. Id. The unlawful detainer action did not *72and could not decide rights of ownership to benefits arising from the use of the property. The unlawful detainer action does not determine whether the possessor under a writ is obligated to pay for his use of the property to ownership interests.
Ownership interests in property — fee simple, life estates, etc. — bring with them beneficial rights accruing through seizin of the property. Roger A. Cunningham, et al., The Law of Property, § 2.1 (1984) (“Ownership of a present estate in land also carries with it very substantial privileges of use and enjoyment.”); accord Parker v. Minneapolis & St. L. R.R., 79 Minn. 372, 373, 82 N.W. 673, 673 (1900). Trespass is the proper action when a party interferes with those beneficial rights. Ordinarily, ejectment was the appropriate action to obtain possession and mesne profits. Where possession was voluntarily relinquished, as here, trespass is still the appropriate action to recover mesne profits. Woll v. Voigt, 105 Minn. 371, 375, 117 N.W. 608, 609 (1908); Blew v. Ritz, 82 Minn. 530, 532, 85 N.W. 548, 549 (1901).
The majority assumes that the possessor under a writ is not a trespasser and therefore does not owe anyone for his use of the property. The majority seems to perceive a trespass action as an intent specific action. Even a mistaken entry to the property of another, however, is a trespass. Roger A. Cunningham, et al., The Law of Property, § 7.1 (1984) (“Any knowing entry upon the possessor’s land is wrongful: it is a trespass. * * * Even an unknowing non-permissive and unprivileged entry is wrongful if it is negligent”). An entry by virtue of a writ of restitution is irrelevant. It is immaterial whether the entry is intentional, unintentional, or under a mistake of fact. Any wrongful entry may be a trespass. Id.
The Farm Credit Bank foreclosure action was void ab initio. Its limited warranty deed to Bjur was therefore void ab initio and conveyed at most color of title. Under these circumstances, jus postliminii, the freehold possession continued in the Burgmeiers. See Gaughie v. Brown, 88 Minn. 469, 474, 93 N.W. 656, 657 (1903) (stating defendant committed trespass when entered land under quit claim deed from grantor with no interest in land); Blew, 82 Minn, at 533, 85 N.W. at 549 (stating grantee may not defend arguing color of title for entering another’s property); Rauma v. Bailey, 80 Minn. 336, 337, 83 N.W. 191, 191 (1900) (holding writ of attachment void because unlawful detainer action void); Merrit v. City of St. Paul, 11 Minn. 223, 231-232, 11 Gil. 145, 152 (1866) (holding writ of attachment void because process issuing writ unconstitutional).
Bjur was a trespasser, albeit an uninten-tioned one. He dispossessed the Burgmeiers of their property, and because he entered under mere color of title, and not good title, he was a trespasser. See Caughie, 88 Minn, at 474, 93 N.W. at 657; Blew, 82 Minn, at 533, 85 N.W. at 549; Rauma, 80 Minn, at 337, 83 N.W. at 191; Merrit, 11 Minn, at 231-232, 11 Gil. at 152. The deed and the writ of restitution were immaterial and were not admissible as a defense to the trespass action. See Sanborn v. Sturtevant, 17 Minn. 200, 207, 17 Gil. 174, 181 (1871) (holding void tax deeds inadmissible to show color of title because color of title no defense to trespass). An action in trespass was therefore appropriate.
I would reverse and remand for determination of mesne profits due the plaintiffs.