§ 14.58

Minnesota Statutes

Source: 2025 Minnesota Statutes. For the official text, see revisor.mn.gov.

Citing Cases (9)

Minnesota Supreme Court

Todd Schwanke v. Minnesota Department of Administration · 2014 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Kmart Corp. v. County of Stearns · 2006 2 citations

A. Purely Prospective Ruling Doctrine As a general rule this court's decisions are given retroactive effect. State v. Baird, 654 N.W.2d 105, 110 (Minn. 2002).[7] But this court has recognized "limited exceptions to the general rule" where *768 "special circumstances" exist. Id. at 110-11. This purely prospective ruling doctrine requires that three factors be present: First, the decision to be applied nonretroactively must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied, * * * or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed * * *. Second, it has been stressed that "we must * * * weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking to the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retrospective operation will further or retard its operation." * * * Finally, we have weighed the inequity imposed by retroactive application, for "[w]here a decision of this court could produce substantial inequitable results if applied retroactively, there is ample basis in our cases for avoiding the `injustice or hardship' by a holding of nonretroactivity." Hoff v. Kempton, 317 N.W.2d 361, 363 (Minn.1982) (quoting Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106-07, 92 S.Ct. 349, 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971)). We have emphasized that this doctrine has been applied in "only very limited situations." Turner v. IDS Fin. Servs., Inc., 471 N.W.2d 105, 108 (Minn.1991). Kmart bases its request for a purely prospective ruling on a series of tax court decisions that said tenant-paid real estate expenses are not required to be produced under the 60-day rule. The first decision on this point was a 2001 order on a motion for reconsideration in another Kmart case. Douglas County, 2001 WL 40361. The tax court said: The value of the property, as determined under the income approach, requires capitalizing the value of the income stream from the property after the expenses that reduce the income stream are deducted. Since expenses that are paid by the tenant do not reduce the income to the landlord, those expenses are not relevant in calculating the value of the property. Id. at *2. Although the court concluded that Kmart's failure to provide "tenant paid business expenses related to real estate" did not provide a basis to dismiss the petition, it dismissed the petition on other grounds. Id. at *3, 5. Thus the language concerning tenant-paid real estate expenses was not dispositive. In another order published on the same day, the tax court denied St. Louis County's motion to dismiss one of Kmart's four petitions. St. Louis County, 2001 WL 40370 at *3. The court held that Kmart's failure to produce tenant-paid real estate expenses did not require dismissal under the 60-day rule.[8]Id. But the court provided no reasoning for this conclusion other than a citation to Douglas County. Id. The other eight decisions that Kmart cites were either decided after the expiration of the 60-day deadline following Kmart's filing of its 2002 petition,[9] or do not support the interpretation of the 60-day rule that Kmart proposes.[10] *769 Even if the conclusions stated in Douglas County and St. Louis County could be characterized as being "clearly established," we conclude that they do not qualify as the type of "precedent" on which litigants may rely for retroactivity purposes. Although the tax court is described as a "court," it is an administrative agency within the executive branch. See Wulff v. Tax Court of Appeals, 288 N.W.2d 221, 222-25 (Minn.1979) (distinguishing the tax court from judicial courts and upholding the constitutionality of the tax court statute, as against claimed violation of separation of powers, on the grounds that the taxpayer has the opportunity to elect to proceed in district court and because the tax court decisions are subject to judicial review of right in this court). As such, its decisions have little, if any, precedential effect. See Sprint Spectrum LP v. Comm'r of Revenue, 676 N.W.2d 656, 661 (Minn.2004) (characterizing decisions of the tax court as being "nonbinding when in conflict with decisions of this court"); In re Whitehead, 399 N.W.2d 226, 229 (Minn. App.1987) (recognizing that if a tax court's departure from a "previous practice" is sufficiently supported by "reason or explanation," "an administrative agency is not bound to rigid adherence to precedent").[11] The dissent relies on the two court of appeals decisions to support the proposition that there are some limits on the ability of an agency to depart from precedent, but those cases only require that there be a reasonable basis for any departure. The conclusion that precedent was based on an erroneous interpretation of a statute surely provides a reasonable basis to depart. Here, it is unclear whether the tax court is departing from Douglas County and St. Louis County because, as noted, the interpretation of the 60-day rule in those cases was not clear. But, to the extent the tax court did depart, it did so by correctly interpreting the 60-day rule, which provided a reasonable basis for departure and prevented its decision from being arbitrary or capricious. We conclude that the decisions of the tax court do not qualify as precedent for purposes of retroactivity analysis. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the tax court serves as an alternative venue to the district court for chapter 278 petitions.[12] Decisions of district courts *770 likewise are not regarded as precedent for retroactivity purposes. See In re Appeal of the Crow Wing County Att'y, 552 N.W.2d 278, 280 n. 2 (Minn.App.1996). Because the tax court serves the same function as district courts in adjudicating property tax appeals, its decisions should not have greater precedential effect than decisions of the district court. Moreover, even if the doctrine of stare decisis were to apply to some orders of the tax court, it would not apply to orders "which are in conflict with the express provisions of statutory law." Murphy Motor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Witte Transp. Co., 260 Minn. 440, 453, 110 N.W.2d 296, 305 (1961) (citing 2 Kenneth Culp Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 17.07 (1st ed.1958)). As in Sprint, where we held that a tax court case is nonbinding if it directly contradicts a previous holding of this court, see Sprint, 676 N.W.2d at 661, a tax court case (like Douglas County and St. Louis County) is nonbinding if it directly contradicts a statute. Thus, where the tax court incorrectly interprets a statute in one case, that interpretation does not override the statute in future cases. And, of course, decisions of the tax court have no binding effect on this court when we are ultimately called on to interpret a statute. Care Inst., Inc.-Maplewood v. County of Ramsey, 576 N.W.2d 734, 738 n. 4 (Minn.1998). The dissent expands on Kmart's arguments by referring to the test for retroactivity of administrative agency decisions followed by a line of federal cases. These cases were not discussed by the parties, likely because they have no application to an administrative agency's interpretation of the plain meaning of a statute. The dissent fails to distinguish between different types of administrative actions. Some administrative actions involve the agency's quasi-legislative power to make policy, including rules or regulations, within the framework of an enabling statute. See Minn. Stat. § 14.05 (2004); St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce v. Minn. Pub. Serv. Comm'n; 312 Minn. 250, 260-61, 251 N.W.2d 350, 357-58 (1977) (stating when an agency acts in a legislative capacity, "its decisions will be upheld [on judicial review] unless shown to be in excess of statutory authority or resulting in unjust, unreasonable, or discriminatory [decisions] by clear and convincing evidence."). Other administrative actions involve the agency's quasi-judicial powers to adjudicate cases. Minn. Stat. § 14.58 (2004); St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce, 312 Minn. at 259-61, 251 N.W.2d at 356, 358 (stating when an agency acts in a judicial capacity, its decision will be reviewed under the substantial-evidence standard). The cases cited by the dissent in support of a prospective test do not involve a change in an agency's interpretation of a statute when made in its quasi-judicial capacity, but a change in the agency's interpretation or application of its own policies, rules or regulations, made in a quasi-legislative capacity. E.g., Williams Natural Gas Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 3 F.3d 1544, 1546, 1552 (D.C.Cir. 1993) (addressing precedent permitting utilities to recover increases in natural gas costs under an automatic purchase gas adjustment policy devised by the agency); Chang v. United States, 327 F.3d 911, 915-16 (9th Cir.2003) (involving the retroactive application of amendments to rules promulgated by the agency); Farmers Tel. Co. v. Fed. Communications Com'n, 184 F.3d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir.1999) (reviewing agency's interpretation of its own regulations); Laborers' Int'l Union of North America, AFL-CIO v. Foster Wheeler Corp., 26 F.3d 375, 385-86 (3d Cir.1994) (approving the retroactive application of an agency decision that reversed agency practices that were not dictated by statute). Obviously, agency decisions based on its *771 own policies, rules and regulations should have greater precedential effect, but even here an agency is not arbitrary or capricious when it reverses a past policy on a reasonable basis. The only federal decision that appears to discuss this prospectivity test in the context of an agency's interpretation of a statute is Microcomputer Technology Inst. v. Riley, 139 F.3d 1044 (5th Cir.1998). The court began with two analyses to determine its scope of review: If the language of the statute plainly resolves the point, we of course must enforce it. * * * But if the statute is ambiguous, we must defer to "reasonable interpretations" made by the agency charged with administering it. 139 F.3d at 1047. The court then determined that although some parts of the agency decision were required by the plain language of the statute, other parts were left open by the statute and were within the policymaking authority of the agency. Id. at 1049. The court only addressed the issue of retroactivity in connection with the latter parts of the agency decision that involved agency policymaking. Id. at 1049-50. As applied here, there is no claim that the legislature's enactment of the 60-day rule left open any question of policy for the tax court to decide. In fact, the tax court is not even charged with the exclusive administration of the 60-day rule. As noted, the tax court is only one adjudicative body that may hear claims under chapter 278, as an alternative to the district court. Because we hold that the plain words of the 60-day rule require production of tenant-paid real estate expenses, we conclude that the federal prospectivity test does not apply to any changes the tax court may have made in its interpretation of the 60-day rule concerning tenant-paid real estate expenses. Any other conclusion would enable an executive branch administrative agency to ignore or amend the plain language of a statute enacted by the legislature, in contravention of separation of powers. For all these reasons we decline to extend the purely prospective ruling doctrine to decisions of the tax court.

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Hymanson v. City of St. Paul · 1983 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Minnesota Court of Appeals

GH Holdings, LLC v. Minnesota Department of Commerce · 2013 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

Schwanke v. Minnesota Department of Administration · 2013 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Minneapolis Public Housing Authority v. Lor · 1998 2 citations

OPINION KALITOWSKI, Judge. Appellant Minneapolis Public Housing Authority (MPHA) contends the district court erred in dismissing MPHA’s unlawful detain-er complaint against respondent Mai Lor. FACTS Respondent Mai Lor is the tenant of a public housing property in Minneapolis, where she has resided "with her four minor children, including a 17-year-old son. While respondent was out of state because of a relative’s illness, her son was involved in a drive-by shooting at another public housing property, and was detained under juvenile charges. Three guns were found in respondent’s home the day after the shooting. At trial, respondent testified that: (1) the family did not own any guns and those found were not her son’s; (2) she did not know what the family would do if they were not allowed to remain in public housing; and (3) her son did not cause trouble in school, has a job, and has never before been in trouble with the police or shown any signs of being in a gang. Respondent’s son said he would agree to neither live in nor visit the home if the family was allowed to stay. The termination provisions of the lease provide: Management shall not terminate, refuse to renew the Lease or evict Tenant from the dwelling unit except for serious or repeated violations of material terms of the Lease or other good cause. Serious violations of the Lease include but are not limited to: * * ⅜ * 4) Any criminal activity that threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other tenants, neighbors and public housing employees, or drug-related criminal activity on or near the premises engaged in by a Tenant, a member of the Tenant’s household, a guest or another person under Tenant’s control while the .Tenant is a tenant in public housing. The MPHA brought an unlawful detainer action seeking the eviction of respondent alleging that she violated her lease because a member of her household engaged in criminal activity. Following a trial, the district court found that although the MPHA has a strong interest in removing criminal and gang activity from its properties, eviction was not an appropriate remedy under the facts of this case. The court further stated that since respondent now knows of the criminal activity, she can take appropriate measures to ensure the activity ceases and thus protect the MPHA. ISSUES 1. Did the district court err in considering factors other than whether the lease was violated? 2. Were the findings of the district court clearly erroneous in support of its conclusion that eviction was not an appropriate remedy? ANALYSIS I. The MPHA contends the district court erred as a matter of law in considering facts other than whether the alleged violation of the lease occurred. In support of its argument, the MPHA cites this court’s statement that [ujnlawful detainer is a civil proceeding, and the only issue for determination is whether the facts alleged in the complaint are true. Our standard of review is whether the trial court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous. Minneapolis Community Dev. Agency v. Smallwood, 379 N.W.2d 554, 555 (Minn.App.1985), review denied (Minn. Feb. 19, 1986) (citations omitted). We conclude that this language in Smallwood is not controlling here. The statute mandating that public housing leases contain eviction provisions for *10criminal activity was enacted subsequent to the Smallwood decision. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1437d(Z )(5) (Supp.1998). Thus the court in Smallwood did not consider the district court’s role in reviewing the public housing authority’s application of the eviction provision at issue here. Because the plain language of neither the lease nor the statute are clear as to the appropriate exercise of discretion by the public housing authority and the courts, we consider the applicable regulations, comments, and legislative history. See Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm’n, 481 U.S. 454, 461, 107 S.Ct. 1855, 1860, 95 L.Ed.2d 404 (1987) (allowing courts to consider legislative history when the statute is ambiguous). Although the statute requires “immediate termination of the tenancy” for some lease violations, it does not automatically require eviction where there is criminal activity by a household member. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1437d(£ )(7) (Supp.1998). Thus, the statute allows the exercise of discretion by the public housing authority in determining whether eviction is appropriate. Legislative history further suggests that congress intended that courts would in turn exercise their judgment when reviewing the public housing authority’s discretionary decision. See S.Rep. No. 101-316 at 179 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5763, 5941 (“The committee anticipates that each ease will be judged on its individual merits and will require the wise exercise of humane judgment by the PHA and the eviction court.”). We therefore reject MPHA’s contention that review of the MPHA’s decision by the court is limited to the issue of whether the facts establish a violation of the lease. Further support for broader district court review of MPHA’s decision to evict is found in the language in respondent’s eviction letter stating that respondent was “not entitled to use the MPHA’s grievance procedure to contest this decision” and that “the opportunity for a hearing in Court” provides “the basic elements of due process as defined in HUD regulations.” Because respondent was not allowed to use MPHA’s grievance procedure, she did not have a hearing in front of a neutral factfinder who was required to make specific findings reviewable by the district court. Thus respondent was denied the type of due process protections guaranteed for contested actions involving Minnesota agencies subject to the Administrative Procedure Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 14.001-.69 (1996 & Supp.1997). See Minn. Stat. § 14.50 (“It shall be the duty of the administrative law judge to: * * * (3) see to it that all hearings are conducted in a fair and impartial manner. ⅜ * * it shall also be the duty of the administrative law judge to make a report on each proposed agency action in which the administrative law judge functioned in an official capacity, stating findings of fact and conclusions and recommendations, taking notice of the degree to which the agency has * * ⅜ demonstrated the need for and reasonableness of its proposed action with an affirmative presentation of facts.”); Minn. Stat. § 14.58 (“In any contested case all parties shall be afforded an opportunity for hearing * * *, [the issues] shall be fully stated as soon as practicable, and opportunity shall be afforded all parties to present evidence and argument with respect thereto.”). Absent these rudimentary due process protections at the administrative level, and consistent with the stated congressional intent that courts exercise “humane judgment” in eviction proceedings, we conclude it was not error for the district court to review the MPHA’s discretionary decision to terminate respondent’s lease. II. Having determined that district court review of MPHA’s decision to evict was appropriate, we further conclude the district court’s review here was based on proper considerations. The regulations under which the MPHA operates list the following factors that the agency can consider when deciding whether to terminate a tenant’s lease: In deciding to evict for criminal activity, the PHA shall have discretion to consider all of the circumstances of the case, including the seriousness of the offense, the extent of participation by family members, and the effects that the eviction would havé on family members not involved in *11the proscribed activity. In appropriate cases, the PHA may permit continued occupancy by remaining family members and may impose a condition that family members who engaged in the proscribed activity will not reside in the unit. 24 C.F.R. § 966.4ffi(5)(i) (1997). Because the MPHA was authorized to consider “all of the circumstances of the case” including “the extent of participation by family members” we reject the MPHA’s argument that the district court erred in specifically addressing whether respondent had knowledge of or reason to anticipate the criminal activity. It is apparent from the district court’s findings that the court properly considered the factors specified by the regulations in reaching its conclusion that eviction is not an appropriate remedy. The MPHA contends the district court’s findings leading to this conclusion were clearly erroneous. We disagree. Initially, we note that the district court had the opportunity to make relevant credibility determinations in considering and applying the appropriate factors. Further, we conclude there is substantial evidentiary support for the district court’s findings and that the findings in turn support the court’s conclusion that eviction was not appropriate. Specifically, the record indicates: (1) respondent was away from the home when her son’s criminal activity occurred, and had no knowledge or involvement in the activity; (2) respondent’s son is in a juvenile facility, and has agreed to stay away from the home after his release if the family is not evicted; (3) there was no evidence of any other lease violations in the time that respondent has lived in the home; (4) respondent had no reason to anticipate the criminal activity by the minor son; and (5) respondent speaks no English and it would be a severe hardship for respondent and her three younger children to attempt find another residence. Finally, we note that it is the policy of this state that “[f]orfeitures are not favored and will not be enforced when great injustice is done thereby and the one seeking a forfeiture is adequately protected without.” Warren v. Driscoll, 186 Minn. 1, 5, 242 N.W. 346, 347 (1932). In view of this policy and the facts of this ease as found by the district court, we conclude the district court did not err in dismissing the unlawful detainer action. DECISION The district court did not err as a matter of law in reviewing the discretionary decision of the MPHA to bring an unlawful detainer action. Further, the district court did not err in dismissing the unlawful detainer action when it found the evidence established that eviction was not the appropriate remedy. Affirmed.