Appeals court overturns eviction
Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.
posted by Bob at Monday, September 29, 2008
Custom Search
Monday, September 29, 2008
A DEMOCRACY TOWN HALL HOME
Do you have a topic you want to discuss at the Town Hall? Email your request to A_Democracy@yahoo.com
“A DEMOCRACY” Disclaimer- While the administrators and moderators of this forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. Therefore you acknowledge that all posts made to this forum express the views and opinions of the author and not the administrators, moderators (except for posts by these people) and hence will not be held liable.
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned
THE ROOF GUYS
Mickey's Diner 1950 7th Street West, St Paul, MN
(651) 698-8387
AX-MAN SURPLUS
1639 University Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55104
Tel:(651)646-8653
LANDLORD.COM LINK HERE
SHHHH! While we listen to words of wisdom from a wise man.
Conscience is the light of the Soul that burns within the chambers of our psychological heart. It is as real as life is. It raises the voice in protest whenever anything is thought of or done contrary to the righteousness. Conscience is a form of truth that has been transferred through our genetic stock in the form of the knowledge of our own acts and feelings as right or wrong. A virtuous and courageous person can alone use the instrument of conscience. He or she can alone hear the inner voice of the soul clearly. In a wicked person this faculty is absent. The sensitive nature of his / her conscience has been destroyed by sin or corruption. Hence he or she is unable to discriminate right from wrong. Those who are leading organizations, business enterprises, institutions and governments should develop this virtue of the ability to use their own conscience. This wisdom of using the clean conscience will enable them to enjoy the freedom.
Dr APJ Kalam, President of India given during the inauguration of the seminar on “THE EFFECTS OF CORRUPTION ON GOOD GOVERNANCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Previous Posts
- Saint Paul/ Federal Fair Housing Lawsuits part 11....
- Fired bus cleaner wins $150,000 award
- Saint Paul/ RNC FALLOUT
- Saint Paul/ Department of Safety and Inspections i...
- St. Paul Port Authority scores big chunk of 3M pro...
- City Says Daughter Can’t Continue Her Late Father’...
- Saint Paul/ Introducing "The Neighborhood From HEL...
- Saint Paul/ Federal Fair Housing Lawsuits, Meet Vi...
- Saint Paul/ Federal Fair Housing Lawsuits part 10,...
- Fla. judge rules saggy pants law unconstitutional
41 Comments:
There may be copy errors.
By Dan Nienaber
Free Press Staff Writer
MANKATO —
A Mankato woman will be allowed to stay in her apartment after the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled a Blue Earth County District Court judge was wrong to rule in favor of her eviction.
After moving into Mankato’s Walnut Towers in July 2006, Lori Schwan received several warnings about her conduct and neighbors concerns. In March 2007, after a confrontation with her landlord, Schwan was told she had to move out.
Schwan challenged the eviction with a lawsuit citing the Minnesota Human Rights Act and the Federal Fair Housing Act. She said she was disabled and requested Walnut Towers make reasonable accommodations for her.
Tashi Shewa, an attorney appointed to her by Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services, said Schwan believed her problems at the apartment would go away if she was able to receive therapy psychiatrist.
When the case came before District Court Judge Kurt Johnson, Shewa objected when Mary Dundas appeared on behalf of Lasson Management, which manages Walnut Towers. Dundas is the apartment manager, not an attorney.
Shewa’s objection said state law requires apartment management companies to be represented by an attorney during eviction hearings.
Johnson overruled the objection, saying it is, “the long standing tradition in Blue Earth County of not requiring incorporated landlords to be represented during eviction hearings,” court records said.
Shewa challenged the ruling, which was reversed by the appeals court.
“When appearing before this court, our supreme court, or in district court, the law in Minnesota requires that a corporation must be represented by a licensed attorney,” the ruling said.
Johnson should have dismissed the eviction rather than going to trial, so there was no reason to decide whether Schwan’s eviction should have been overturned for other reasons, the ruling said. The ruling also pointed out Walnut Towers still hasn’t appointed an attorney to the case.
“This should be the end of it,” Shewa said last week. “The order has come down and I don’t think Walnut Towers is going to appeal to the Supreme Court.”
Dundas could not be reached for comment.
LOL
Only the lawyers would write a law that a corporation HAS TO be represented by a lawyer at an eviction.
OUCH
Hope the lobbiest got a lot for that one.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Bad news for landlords. As if it's not expensive enough to get rid of bad tenants, now you have to hire a lawyer to boot! Looks like maybe the landlords will be a little slower to get rid of those bad tenants Chuck.
The way I understand it, is that the point in requiring an atty at legal proceedings involving a corporation is to protect all shareholders/owners of the corp. Allowing one rogue "legal representative" to act on behalf of the corp (and all of its owners by proxy), could have dire consequences for those that own a piece of the corp, but don't necessarily participate in its day-to-day operations. Just my 2 cents.
Mark
No doubt the lobbyist was a lawyer asking a legislator who was also a lawyer to create that law right Chuck ?
Jeff Matiatos
Yes, I get the legal point for a corp with many share holders to want a lawyer to represent them in a legal proceeding, but come on there are many individuals or groups of two or three partners that are incorperated.
And, property managers with a real estate license have done this for years and years.
Tough day for land lords.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
My only final point is the Judge in this case was pickin' & choosin' what statutes/laws he was going to enforce. It's all or none Man! Unacceptable!
Mark
unreal.
A corporate board ought to be able to decide who represents them at a court hearing. If the board makes a bad decision, the shareholders ought to oust 'em.
These laws/judges that interfere in commerce must be indivduals who have never tried to operate a company.
It boggles my mind that cities work to eliminate problem tenants by beating up landlords, then the same cities fund legal aid like attorneys to make it harder for us to eliminate the tenants. Sigh.
Bill Cullen.
Bill,
The law is the law whether you like it or not. The city hasn't made it harder for you to get rid of bad tenants, the legislature simply requires you to get a lawyer which if you are succedssful in proving your case against the tenant with the lawyer, you can be awarded attorneys fees.
Yes, you probably won't ever see the attorneys fees,but having a lawyer assures that if your grounds for evicting are solid, you will evict the tenant right away .
Those are the rules you must understand before you decide you want to be a landlord.
I feel for you though.
Jeff Matiatos
Why don't you copy the UNPUBLISHED OPINION........
WHICH IS NOT PRECEDANT: WHERE IS NANCY LAZARYAN?
If memory serves , Larry Cohen,former Mayor,County Board,Judge, Lawyer, changed the law, that only Lawyers could represent Corporations.
The Judge was correct in this high tech age. Walnut Towers should appeal on the Constitutionality of the Law, Perhaps Lori Schwan in the Hot Waters of Committment.
It looks as though the cost of renting a house will be going up. The landlords don't care if they need an Attorney, they just get one and pass the costs on (just like any other business) in the from of increased rent.
I understand and agree Jeff. I know the state Legislature created this law.
My point was that cities fund legal aid and it is their activism that pushed this case and ultimately obtained this ruling.
I wonder why legal aid doesn't ever help neighborhoods and work WITH landlords to "encourage" tenants to be less disruptive?
Bill Cullen.
Talking about legal aid, I tried to use them to help me in a case I was involved in against the county and city.
They refused to get involved in both as those suits involved corruption.
In one of those cases, I decided to do it on my own and prevailed against the county.
Shame on legal aid.
Jeff Matiatos
Bill and others,
As the courts have ruled, the purpose behind attorneys being required to represent corporations :
"is the protection of the public and courts from the consequences of ignorance or venality ".
Strong Delivery Ministery Ass'n vs. Board of appeal of Cook County 543 F2d 32, 37 (7th Cir. 1976)
Bill, See Minnesota Statute 481.02 Subdv 3(12).
Jeff Matiatos
Jeff quoted the courts ruling:
"is the protection of the public and courts from the consequences of ignorance or venality ".
Whew! I feel SO much better knowing that we will never have ignorance or venality anymore! One less thing for me to worry 'bout.
Seems to me our court system is now protecting us from our selves by assuring we can never afford to have a day in court.
Only a big government advocate could come up with something this f'ing Brilliant.
Bill Cullen.
No Bill... I would say this was the lobbyest for the Trial Lawyers. No big government in this just making sure one generates business.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Chuck is right, about trial lawyers advocating for themselves (because of the attorney fees that a landlords insurance might pay) when this law was passed about corporations having to have an attorney.
Minnesota Statute 481.02 seems to conflict with the fact that courts permit pro-se litigants to litigate their private suits against corporations.
I am for a landlord being able to represent themselves against a tenant on eviction or other matters.
At least this way, the level of competance could be equal where as
the law that landlords must have an attorney is not so much there to prevent ignorance or vanality, but to create work and fees for attorneys.
I have committed hundreds of hours litigating my own cases and no courts or laws do anything to see that I get compensated for my time and efforts.
Do you folks see the double standard here ?
Jeff Matiatos
This is a BS ruling aimed only to stick to the evil landlord. I thought MN statute 504B.291 only allows a landlord to collect up to a measly 5 bucks in attorney fees. After all everyone knows landlords get rich by evicting tenants. What a joke ruling!
Its not a joke ruling because the ruling only finds for the statute.
It is the statute that is a joke.
If I was a tenant, I would rather go up against an ignorant landlord
than his court mandated attorney who has knowledge.
This Mankato woman shot herself in the foot by insisting that her opposing landlord have a lethal attorney on the opposing side as opposed to just deal with Dundas.
Jeff Matiatos
I have read 504B.291 and it seems this is the answer.
If a tenant is being evicted for non payment of rent as opposed to an other material violation of the lease, the court may deny the eviction if the tenant brings the rent into court which if in the tenants responce to the eviction summons, the tenants states he is willing to pay the rent to the court.
In this case, the landlord does not need an attorney because the outcome would be that if the tenant does bring in the money for rent, the tenant can retake possesion.
No attorney can possibly benefit from a pre determined outcome should the court restore the tenant to his apartment when he brings the rent owed to court.
Other material breaches of the lease and damages from a tenant might require that an attorney protect the landlord and other tenants.
Usually the landlord has insurance that pays for an attorney like when St.Paul bought a $10.000.000.00 insurance to cover attorneys and litigations costs for the RNC.
Jeff Matiatos
Your generalization that landlords always bringing bogus cases is not fair. Landlords still have to prove their case to a judge, who nearly always at least starts with giving the tenant the benefit of the doubt. If the case against the tenant is BS, the landlord will lose and be out the court filing fee and time. In my experience, over 90% of the time we have had to take someone to court, it is for the black-and-white issue of non-payment of rent. In these cases you are already losing money in rent, risking getting a trashed unit back, and then you still have to find a new tenant to rerent the unit. These company landlords are not 3M, many are mom-n-pop owners. Paying thousands to attorneys to execute a routine legal process when the owner wants to represent itself is not justice—it’s a scam.
9:59 a.m.,
Has you ever checked to see what it would cost to get insurance that covers attorney representation in court ?
Does homeowners cover this type of insurance ?
Unless the statutes change, this is unfortunatley the law that landlords need attorneys.
You said that if the case against the tenant is BS, then the landlord is out filing fees and time ?
Well if it was BS, then you SHOULD be out filing fees and time !
You said 90% of the time it's a black and white issue of non payment of rent. Either your not screening your tenants or you shouldn't be in the rental buisness.
Having a requirement that attorneys represent corporations and landlords also acts as a deterrent factor to the corporation not to bring bogus cases or risk paying the costs of litigation.
Jeff Matiatos
No Bill... I would say this was the lobbyest for the Trial Lawyers. No big government in this just making sure one generates business.
Chuck Repke
and
"Chuck is right, about trial lawyers advocating for themselves (because of the attorney fees that a landlords insurance might pay) when this law was passed about corporations having to have an attorney.
Wrong.
As one who is a Lobbyist for the Trial Lawyers, I'll have to inform you that we do not push legislation that is harmful to consumers. Especially on behalf of corporations. In our world those are polar opposite(consumer interest vs corporate interest)and we always line up with the consumer.
The Minnesota Defense Lawyers Association are your corporate attorneys. They are not Trial Lawyers.
Sid, you got your answer you were seeking last week.
Eric
Eric, try again.
I didn't say anything that suggests
that lobbyists push legislation to
harm consumers.
I stated that lobbyists who may be attorneys, or former judges etc, (who advocate for lawyers iterests) push legislation to benefit lawyers.
Did I use the word consumer ?
Jeff Matiatos
Your joking right Eric ?
Lawyers love the corporate buisness
more than the consumer because the corporation has the funds and insurance with which to pay attorneys fees. Large fees I might add.
Your not fooling anyone !
Jeff Matiatos
How I would love to be a corporate lawyer !!!
Jeff,
Plantiff Attorneys or Trial Attorneys (if you are a member of the Trial Bar) take cases of INDIVIDUALS against corporations and companies. Sometimes the client is an entity but the defendant is always a company that would crush the individual in other circumstances. They even the playing field.
Attorney who represent corporations in civil cases are, again, part of the Minnesota Defense Lawyers Association. They are our polar opposite.
I'm sure you know more about my profession than I but, allow me to go on.
Trial Attorney's would only be behind this law if you could show a benefit to the consumer. I'm not seeing it.
When you start pontificating on lawyers, understand that there are different fields with different objections.
I can already predict your next comment will be fill with ad-hominem comments. Since this is inside baseball and I'm standing alone, it won't matter.
Trail Lawyers do not work for corporations, especially the Insurance Industry.
Eric
Alright Eric, the Minnesota Twins partnership corporation were represented by Dorsey and Whitney.
Corporate trial attorneys.
Anything else ?
Jeff Matiatos
(why do I try?)
Do you know what a public defender is?Do you know what a prosecutor is?
Two types of attorneys that do not cross practices.
I'm trying to give you a little education here:
Trial Lawyers are a type of attorney. 'Trial' doesn't mean courtroom action in this sense. Trial lawyers represent clients involved in civil litigation (torts, medmal, product liability, WC), not criminal, as one who was corporate attorney may find themselves doing.
The national trial bar organization is the American Association for Justice and the local one is the Minnesota Association for Justice. Dorsey and Whitney is a big firm that has zero members in the Trial Lawyers association(Minnesota Association for Justice). Again, I would know.
You got definitions mixed up.
Why the hell would a company hire personal injury attorneys? They'd hire the opposite to protect themselves. They'd probably have an attorney for regulatory issues, patents and general business litigation but, not a trial lawyer.
Got it?
Eric
Now here's Eric talking his half baked shit again. The hell they don't hurt comsumers....they just go through the back door and hurt the Corporation and then the Corporation is the bad guy when they raise their prices to cover the costs of the Attorneys and their lobbying successes. Kinda like they do with the landlords.....they can't get at the renters cause they have rights, so they go in the back door and make the landlord do the dirty work violating the renters rights. Typical DFL operation.
So prosecutors and public defenders don't cross practices ?
They all go to Law school and
decide later what type of attorney they want to be.
It's like your trying to convince us that a public defender would NEVER become a prosecutor is like saying a prosecutor or public defender would never become a judge.
Face it Eric, you may say you lobby for attorneys or whatever, but to me, you don't understand how lawyers are even able to become judges in the first place.
Part of why people elect judges is because they have worked both as prosecutors and public defenders. YOUR WRONG !
In your world, if every judge was a prosecutor, all the landlords would be in jail.
Jeff Matiatos
Oh Eric Eric ! You sound like a big baby.
I have enough credibility to speak to you or anybody else here.
Trouble for you is most posters here think you lack credibility.
You just can't handle your own medicine.
You can dish it out but you can't take it so you resort to name calling ?
So mature and intelligent.
Your just a whigger wanna be.
How could such a purported intellect like you be so inflamed by a loser like me as you say ?
As long as I am posting here, I will respond to your posts and anybody elses.
You just can't handle being pistol whipped by your own illogic.
See ya on the next post !
Jeff Matiatos
I can point to some instances where you have been proven wrong here Eric.
It's just that your ego won't let you even imagine the very thought of being wrong.
Come down off your high horse brother because your statement that I am speaking down to you just exposes your weakness that you don't think to highly of yourself.
Like I said before, I don't resort to name calling or anything like that unless of course you want to be treated like a child which in that case, my smug ass will play the little game with you and call you a name or two.
Happy now ?
Jeff Matiatos
Sorry but, I'm stuck on the whigger term. You were explaining what you meant by that- or something like that-Chump.
Eric
Jeff is a big mouth phony who stepped in it and will try to move.
You're just another peon who knows nothing of how this city works or the courts.
But keep talking, until you go back to work, it'll give you something to do, besides you're among good company.
Eric
Bob,
Please remove Eric's 4:12 PM post.
This type of posting is not appropriate.
Bob,
Please remove Eric's 4:12 PM post.
This type of posting is not appropriate.
Bob, "wah, wah, Eric, wah, wah,"
I respond in-kind which is why I cut and paste the post I'm responding to.
Where was you conscience when he was using words like 'whigger' in the post that i responded to?
That's OK because it doesn't offend YOU, huh?
Eric
You deserve every bit of it Eric !
You deserve every bit of it Eric !
6:26 PM
Really? For what you Facist? Because I disagree? So what?
You seem to be nothing but another anonymous coward popping off where you have no clue or credibility. GO back to sleep.
Eric
Whats your last name Eric ? Or are you only half anonymous ?
Are you offended by the word Whigger ?
Get back to work before your supervisior finds out your shamming
on company time !
and yet another one. What? Is this site breeding anonymous cowards?
Eric
Post a Comment
<< Home