Lanthier v. Michaelson
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 2006, among the opinions in this site’s citation index. Amendment history from the Minnesota Revisor of Statutes. A later amendment does not necessarily affect this decision's analysis — check the current statute text.Cites Minnesota statutes amended since this decision
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Minnesota statutes cited
Sections of the Minnesota Statutes this opinion cites.
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Scroggins v. Solchaga (Minn. Ct. App. 1996)
- Real Estate Equity Strategies, LLC v. Jones (Minn. Ct. App. 2006)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
FACTS
Kenneth Michaelson appeals an unlawful detainer judgment on the basis of an al *246 leged failure to comply with the notice provision of Minn.Stat. § 504.22 (1984). The statute requires disclosure to tenants of the name and address of the manager of the premises and of an owner or authorized agent. This information is to be provided in the rental agreement or otherwise in writing before the commencement of the tenancy and is also to be posted in the lobby of the building. If these requirements are not met, no action to recover rent or possession of the premises can be maintained unless the necessary information has been disclosed to the tenant at least 30 days prior to the action. Michael-son alleges that the information was not furnished to him 30 days before initiation of the unlawful detainer action, and he appeals the judgment of restitution and the trial court’s ruling that the landlord had complied with the statute.
However, Minn.Stat. §§ 566.11 and 566.-12 (1984) require the posting of a superse-deas bond in order to suspend the effect of a writ of restitution during an appeal. The court records reveal that, although an order setting a supersedeas bond was issued, the bond was never posted, and no rental payments were ever made into the court. Further, Michaelson relinquished the premises voluntarily prior to the execution of the writ of restitution. Thus, this court concludes that no justiciable controversy remains, and we may not issue advisory opinions.
DECISION
The case is moot.
Dismissed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.