Juan Cuate v. Pedro Cuate-Dominguez (2024)

Citation: Juan Cuate v. Pedro Cuate-Dominguez (2024)
Parent Document: Juan Cuate v. Pedro Cuate-Dominguez (2024)
Jurisdiction: Minnesota (state)
Effective Date: 2024-09-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10129059/juan-cuate-v-pedro-cuate-dominguez/ ↗

Full Text

1,588 chars

3
We are also unpersuaded by appellants’ contention that respondent violated the South St.
Paul Code of Ordinances by failing to obtain a rental license and that respondent therefore
could not have collected “rent” for the purpose of determining the notice period under
Minnesota Statutes section 504B.135. Appellants rely on two nonprecedential cases in
support of this argument. Both are distinguishable. In the first case appellants cite, we
“conclude[d] that an eviction was not proper, in part, because respondent lacked a rental
license,” but we also stated that “respondent and those in his situation are not without
recourse” because “[r]espondent could have obtained an eviction with proper notice to
quit.” Wajda v. Schmeichel, No. A18-0060, 2018 WL 6165295, at *4 (Minn. App. Nov. 26,
2018), rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 19, 2019). As explained below, obtaining an eviction with
proper notice to quit is exactly what respondent did here. The second case appellants cite
is likewise inapposite because it is an appeal from an eviction action “based solely on
[tenants’] failure to pay rent[,]” not on termination of a tenancy at will after written notice
under section 504B.135, as in this case. See Beaumia v. Eisenbraun, No. A06-1482, 2007
WL 2472298, at *1 (Minn. App. Sept. 4, 2007). Thus, even assuming without deciding that
respondent failed to obtain a rental license, that failure—while troubling—would not alter
our conclusion that the district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that
respondent provided appellants sufficient notice under section 504B.135.

Other Sections in This Document (231)

Full Text