Court Opinion

ID: 9884774
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:11:13.058298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:40.515024
License: Public Domain

POPOVICH, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent for the following reasons:
1.I believe the supreme court in its latest interpretation of Minn.Stat. § 566.04, in Berg v. Wiley, 264 N.W.2d 145 (Minn.1978), must be followed. There the supreme court said:
We are mindful that by § 566.04 the summary remedy of §§ 566.02 to 566.17 is made unavailable against any tenant having been “in quiet possession for three years next before the filing of the complaint * * *.” This reflects an appropriate policy choice by the legislature to require full litigation of the right to possession in a common-law ejectment action before judicially ousting a tenant of such long tenure. Our holding, disallowing self-help in such cases as well, is consistent with the legislative policy protecting the long-term tenant.
Id. at 151 n. 8.
2. The majority’s speculation what the supreme court did not intend by not citing Suchaneck and Alworth is just that — simple speculation. The latest pronouncements of the supreme court should not be lightly disregarded. The Wiley footnote is not an offhand comment by the supreme court, but indicates it felt the unavailability of an unlawful detainer action against a long-term tenant is an appropriate policy choice requiring full litigation of the right to possession.
3. Perhaps if a petition for review is filed the supreme court can indicate itself what it intended. Until then, I feel we are constrained to always apply the latest rulings on a subject matter made by the supreme court.