Court Opinion

ID: 9927840
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-30 15:06:05.961389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:27:37.279255
License: Public Domain

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
                         Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

                               STATE OF MINNESOTA
                               IN COURT OF APPEALS
                                     A23-0426

                                    Tenisha Williams,
                                       Appellant,

                                            vs.

                                    Halimatou Diallo,
                                      Respondent.

                                 Filed January 29, 2024
                                        Affirmed
                                 Smith, Tracy M., Judge

                             Hennepin County District Court
                               File No. 27-CV-21-14446

Tenisha Williams, Brooklyn Park, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Philip Sieff, Robins Kaplan, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

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

Wheelock, Judge.

                           NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

SMITH, TRACY M., Judge

      Following a court trial after removal from conciliation court, appellant former tenant

challenges the district court’s determinations that (1) respondent landlord’s written

statement justifying withholding the tenant’s security deposit satisfied statutory

requirements and (2) the landlord was not precluded from collecting rent although the
landlord undisputedly lacked a required municipal rental license for the dwelling. We

affirm.

                                             FACTS

          This appeal arises out of appellant Tenisha Williams’s action against her former

landlord, respondent Halimatou Diallo, to recover Williams’s security deposit and the rent

that Williams had already paid and Diallo’s counterclaim for unpaid rent.

          In December 2019, Williams and Diallo entered into a one-year lease agreement for

a townhome in Brooklyn Park. Williams lived at the townhome from November 2019

through the beginning of December 2020.

          Around September 2020, Diallo told Williams that she would not renew the lease.

In October 2020, Williams stopped paying rent and told Diallo that she was moving out in

December.

          Williams moved out in early December 2020. At the trial on the parties’ competing

claims, Williams agreed that she left beds and boxes in the garage. She also testified that

she did not clean the townhome due to hostility during the move-out. Diallo testified that

Williams caused property damage, including an unscrewed railing; caused damage to

refrigerator handles, carpet, flooring, and walls; and did not return keys. Diallo provided

an invoice from a cleaning company for $698.52. Williams testified that she struggled to

pay rent due to loss of income as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and that she could

not receive rent assistance because Diallo did not have a rental license.

          Diallo testified that she notified Williams by certified mail and email that she would

not return Williams’s security deposit. Diallo did not provide evidence of the certified mail

                                                2
or emails, but she offered a text message from her to Williams. The text message was read

into evidence by the district court judge and stated the following:

              Do you realize the deposit doesn’t cover even close to cover
              what you owe me? You stayed for three months without
              paying, ransacked the house, destroyed even the new fridge I
              just got, painted a room without permission. So the balance you
              owe will be to you. Any additional legal letters will be sent to
              the address.

Williams does not dispute that she received this text message.

       It is undisputed that Williams did not pay rent for the months of October and

November and the first week of December in 2020. The tenant rental ledger listed the rent

owing for that period as $4,974.80 and the security deposit amount as $2,350.

       Williams initiated an action in conciliation court seeking recovery of her security

deposit and the rent that she had paid to Diallo—together totaling approximately $15,000.

Diallo filed a counterclaim against Williams seeking judgment of $14,875 for the last

months’ unpaid rent and rental property damage. After a contested hearing, the conciliation

court issued an order finding that Diallo was entitled to judgment against Williams for

$5,694.80.

       Williams appealed the conciliation court’s ruling to the district court. The

conciliation court’s judgment was vacated, and the matter proceeded to a bench trial.

       Following the trial, the district court ruled in favor of Diallo. First, the district court

determined that Williams was not entitled to recover her security deposit because the text

message that Diallo sent to Williams satisfied the requirement of a “written statement”

under Minnesota Statutes section 504B.178 (2022) when retaining a security deposit and

                                                3
the evidence at trial demonstrated that Williams caused property damage that offset the

security deposit. Second, the district court concluded that Williams was not entitled to

recover paid rent and that Williams owed Diallo $4,974.80 1 for unpaid rent because

Diallo’s failure to obtain a rental license did not preclude Diallo from collecting rent.

       Williams appeals. 2

                                        DECISION

I.     The district court did not err when it determined that Williams was not entitled
       to recover her security deposit.

       Williams challenges the district court’s determination that Diallo’s text message

notifying Williams that Diallo was withholding Williams’s security deposit was sufficient

under Minnesota Statutes section 504B.178, subdivision 3. Williams contends that the

written statement required by that provision must be sent via the United States mail and,

because the text message was not, she is entitled to the return of her security deposit and

interest as provided in Minnesota Statutes section 504B.178, subdivision 4.

       Minnesota law provides that, “within three weeks after termination of the tenancy”

and “after receipt of the tenant’s mailing address or delivery instructions,” a landlord must

either return a security deposit paid by the tenant or “furnish to the tenant a written

statement showing the specific reason for the withholding of the deposit.” Minn. Stat.

§ 504B.178, subd. 3(a). A landlord may withhold a security deposit “(1) to remedy tenant

1
 The district court also ordered Williams to pay $50 in costs, so the total judgment against
Williams was $5,024.80.
2
  Williams is self-represented in this appeal. Diallo did not file a responsive brief, and we
therefore determine the case on the merits. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 142.03.

                                              4
defaults in the payment of rent” or “(2) to restore the premises to their condition at the

commencement of the tenancy” excluding “ordinary wear and tear.” Id., subd. 3(b). If a

landlord fails to provide a timely written statement, the landlord is “liable to the tenant for

damages in an amount equal to the portion of the deposit withheld by the landlord and

interest.” Id., subd. 4.

       A.      Diallo’s text message was sufficient under Minnesota Statutes section
               504B.178.

       Whether a text message may constitute a “written statement” for the purposes of

Minnesota Statutes section 504B.178, subdivision 3, is a matter of statutory interpretation.

“The interpretation of a statute is a question of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.”

Cocchiarella v. Driggs, 884 N.W.2d 621, 624 (Minn. 2016).

       The goal of statutory interpretation is to “ascertain and effectuate the intention of

the legislature.” Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2022). “When a word or phrase has a plain meaning,

[appellate courts] presume that the plain meaning is consistent with legislative intent and

engage in no further statutory construction.” Shire v. Rosemount, Inc., 875 N.W.2d 289,

292 (Minn. 2016). Words and phrases are construed according to their plain and ordinary

meaning. Am. Tower, L.P. v. City of Grant, 636 N.W.2d 309, 312 (Minn. 2001).

       To support her contention that the written statement must be delivered by U.S. mail,

Williams relies on Minnesota Statutes section 504B.178, subdivision 3(b), which provides:

               It shall be sufficient compliance with the time requirement of
               this subdivision if the . . . written statement required by this
               subdivision is placed in the United States mail as first class
               mail, postage prepaid, in an envelope with a proper return
               address, correctly addressed according to the mailing address

                                              5
                or delivery instructions furnished by the tenant, within the time
                required by this subdivision.

Williams argues that, because subdivision 3(b) explicitly references “the United States

mail,” the statute requires the written statement to be sent by U.S. mail. The argument is

unpersuasive.

       As is plain from the start of subdivision 3(b), the provision addresses “compliance

with the time requirement” of subdivision 3. The time requirement, as explained above, is

“within three weeks after termination of the tenancy” and “after receipt of the tenant’s

mailing address or delivery instructions.” Minn. Stat. § 504B.178, subd. 3(a). Subdivision

3(b) provides that it is “sufficient compliance” with the time requirement if a properly

prepared mailed statement is deposited in the U.S. mail within that time period.

Subdivision 3(b) does not state that a written statement complies with the statute only if it

is sent by U.S. mail. The rules of statutory construction prohibit appellate courts from

“adding words or meaning to a statute that were intentionally or inadvertently left out.”

Genin v. 1996 Mercury Marquis, 622 N.W.2d 114, 117 (Minn. 2001). Accordingly, we

decline to interpret subdivision 3(b) as requiring that a written statement provided pursuant

to section 504B.178 be sent via U.S. mail.

       Further, two other subdivisions of the statute—subdivision 3(a) and subdivision 4—

support the interpretation that the “written statement” need not be sent via U.S. mail. See

State v. Pakhnyuk, 926 N.W.2d 914, 920 (Minn. 2019) (explaining that statutory language

must not be read in isolation but rather “all provisions in the statute must be read and

interpreted as whole”). Subdivision 3(a) provides that the landlord must “furnish” a written

                                               6
statement to the tenant that provides the reasons for withholding the security deposit.

“Furnish” is not defined by statute. See Minn. Stat. § 504B.001 (2022) (defining terms for

purposes of Minnesota Statutes chapter 504B). When a term is not defined by statute,

courts may look to dictionary definitions to ascertain the common and ordinary meaning

of the term. State v. Thonesavanh, 904 N.W.2d 432, 436 (Minn. 2017). One definition of

“furnish” is “[t]o provide.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

712 (5th ed. 2018). Thus, the plain meaning of subdivision 3(a) is that the landlord must

“provide” the written statement. While “providing” the written statement may be

accomplished via U.S. mail, the plain language of subdivision 3(a) does not require the

written statement to be sent via the mail.

       Additionally, subdivision 4, the penalty provision, states that “any landlord who

fails to . . . provide a written statement within three weeks of termination of the tenancy

. . . after receipt of the tenant’s mailing address or delivery instructions, as required in

subdivision 3, is liable to the tenant for damages.” Like subdivision 3, this provision does

not explicitly state that the written statement must be delivered via U.S. mail. And, similar

to subdivision 3(a), this provision uses the word “provide,” a synonym for the word

“furnish,” rather than a more specific description of how the written statement must be

delivered to the tenant. The plain meaning of the statute therefore does not require the

written statement to be sent via the U.S. mail.

       With this understanding of the statute, Diallo’s text message was a “written

statement” that Diallo “furnished” or “provided” to Williams. Williams does not dispute

that she received the text message, nor does she argue that it was delivered outside of the

                                             7
three-week deadline. Williams also does not claim that the reasons that Diallo gave for

withholding the security deposit—to recover unpaid rent and to restore damaged

property—are not statutorily permitted reasons. Williams’s challenge to the district court’s

determination that Diallo’s written statement was sufficient under section 504B.178

therefore fails.

       B.      Diallo was justified in withholding Williams’s security deposit.

       Although Williams does not provide much explanation, she suggests that the district

court made erroneous factual findings in determining that Diallo was justified in

withholding Williams’s security deposit. “Findings of fact, whether based on oral or

documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall

be given to the opportunity of the [district] court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.”

Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01. A finding is clearly erroneous if it is “manifestly contrary to the

weight of the evidence or not reasonably supported by the evidence as a whole.” In re Civ.

Commitment of Kenney, 963 N.W.2d 214, 221 (Minn. 2021) (quotation omitted).

       Here, the district court determined that the property damage, cleaning costs, and

missing keys offset Williams’s security deposit. The record supports the district court’s

findings. Diallo testified regarding damage to the townhome’s walls, stair railing, floors,

and refrigerator; costs to hire a cleaning company; and keys not being returned. The district

court found Diallo’s testimony credible. We discern no clear error in the district court’s

factual findings regarding the basis for Diallo to withhold the security deposit.

                                              8
II.      The district court did not err when it determined that Williams was not entitled
         to recover paid rent and that Williams owed Diallo unpaid rent.

         Williams contends that Diallo was not entitled to collect rent because Diallo failed

to obtain a rental license as required by the Brooklyn Park municipal code. She argues that

the district court therefore erred in denying her claim for rent paid and in granting Diallo’s

claim for unpaid rent.

         The district court’s determination regarding whether Diallo is entitled to rent

throughout the tenancy is a legal conclusion—it is undisputed that Diallo did not have a

rental license throughout the tenancy and that Williams did not pay rent in the latter months

of her tenancy. Appellate courts review a district court’s conclusions of law de novo.

W. Insulation Servs. v. Cent. Nat’l Ins. Co. of Omaha, 460 N.W.2d 355, 357 (Minn. App.

1990).

         The Brooklyn Park rental-license ordinance provides:

                It is unlawful to operate a rental dwelling in the city without
                first having obtained a license from the City Manager. Each
                general housing unit and each apartment complex must register
                annually with the City Manager. No license is required under
                this subchapter when an owner occupies a living unit as a
                permanent residence. Failure to obtain a rental license may
                result in the issuance of administrative citations and fines and
                any other civil or criminal penalties available to the city.

Brooklyn Park, Minn., Code of Ordinances (BPCO) § 117.43 (2023).

         Williams appears to argue that Diallo was not entitled to collect rent because

violating the Brooklyn Park rental-license ordinance was a crime. However, the Brooklyn

Park ordinance does not explicitly state that a violation necessarily constitutes a crime;

rather, the ordinance specifically provides that a violation “may result” in the city issuing

                                               9
“administrative citations and fines and any other civil or criminal penalties available to the

city.” Id.

       As Williams notes, the Brooklyn Park rental-license ordinance cross-references

section 10.99 of the Brooklyn Park code. Id. Section 10.99 provides in relevant part:

              Any person, firm or corporation who violates any provision of
              this code for which another penalty is not specifically
              provided, shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor.
              The penalty which may be imposed for any crime which is a
              misdemeanor under this code, including Minnesota Statutes
              specifically adopted by reference, shall be a sentence of not
              more than 90 days or a fine of not more than $1,000, or both.

BPCO § 10.99 (2023). But it is not clear that the reference to this general penalty provision

renders every violation of the rental-license ordinance a crime. Rather, the plain language

of the rental-license ordinance provides several options for how a violation may be

handled, including “administrative citations” which are not criminal penalties. BPCO

§ 117.43. Based on the plain language of the rental-license ordinance, we do not conclude

that every violation is a crime, as Williams contends.

       Even if a violation of the rental-license ordinance were a crime, Williams does not

cite to any precedential authority in support of her contention that violating a rental-license

ordinance prevents a landlord from collecting rent. Williams relies primarily on two

Hennepin County District Court decisions, which she did not append to her briefing.

Decisions of the district court are not precedential. See Green v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 826

N.W.2d 530, 537 n.5 (Minn. 2013) (noting “[t]hat the district court orders lack precedential

value”).

                                              10
       Williams also cites to a “2007” opinion by this court in which, according to

Williams, we held “that a landlord could not evict a tenant for failing to pay rent if the

landlord had not properly licensed the rental home.” Although Williams did not provide

the case name, we infer that she is referencing Beaumia v. Eisenbraun, No. A06-1482,

2007 WL 2472298 (Minn. App. Sept. 4, 2007). Nonprecedential opinions of this court are

not binding authority. Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c). Further, Williams does not

explain how Beaumia supports her argument.

       Beaumia addressed whether a violation of the City of Alexandria’s rental-license

ordinance constituted a violation of the statutory covenant “to maintain the premises in

compliance with the applicable health and safety laws of the state . . . and of the local units

of government.” 2007 WL 2472298, at *2 (alteration in original) (citing Minn. Stat.

§ 504B.161, subd. 1(3) (2006) 3). This court concluded that the landlord’s violation of the

Alexandria rental-license ordinance constituted a breach of the statutory covenant based

on the purpose of the rental-license ordinance. Id. We do not find Beaumia persuasive here.

The statutory covenant does not state that the violation of an applicable ordinance, where

a violation constitutes a crime, is necessarily a violation of the statutory covenant, and

Beaumia does not address this issue. Williams does not otherwise explain how Beaumia

supports her argument.

3
 The statutory covenant is now codified in Minn. Stat. § 504B.161, subd. 1(a)(4) (2022).
The quoted language is unchanged.

                                              11
       Because Williams’s arguments are unpersuasive, we conclude that the district court

did not err in determining that Williams was not entitled to recover rent paid and that

Williams owed Diallo unpaid rent, despite Diallo’s failure to obtain a rental license.

       Affirmed.

                                            12