2019.10.08 WS Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

26 a result, landlords can – and do – refuse to renew a tenant’s lease for any (nondiscriminatory and non-retaliatory 82) reason or for no reason. This is in contrast to tenants in certain federally subsidized housing, such as public housing, project-based Section 8, and Low-Income Housing Tax Credit properties, who have protections against nonrenewal without good cause. Ordinances that are commonly known as “just cause eviction” would extend the rights currently afforded to tenants living in federally subsidized housing to those living in private housing. In other words, private landlords would have to give a “good cause” reason to not renew a lease at the end of a term, similar to how they would have to during the term of the lease. Minnesota Statute 504B.135 prescribes the process for terminating a tenancy at will but does not address the reasons why a party may terminate. As such, a city ordinance identifying acceptable reasons for termination would likely not conflict with state law. Opponents argue that just cause ordinances will tie landlords up in the court system. However, the name “just cause eviction” is a misnomer in that it does not require court action. While “eviction” and “termination/ nonrenewal” are used interchangeably when referring to ending a tenant’s lease, they are actually two very different actions. Understanding the difference is critical to understanding the consequences of each. An “eviction action” is a formal action taken by a housing provider, filed in court, demanding determination of possession of the property by the court. It generates a court record, and therefore appears on tenant screening report searches, as it is public data. It formerly was referred to as an “unlawful detainer”, or “UD”. A “termination” or “nonrenewal” of a lease is simply an action taken by a housing provider to end a tenancy. This is required to be in writing, but does not implicate a court. Because it is not a court record, it does not appear on tenant screening reports, and is generally considered a private matter. To refer to just cause protections as “just cause eviction” is inaccurate in that they do not relate to any court action. Instead, a just cause ordinance would state that a private housing provider could no longer refuse to renew a lease or terminate a lease at the end of the term for no reason. A lease could only be terminated – or not renewed – if there was a “good cause” to do so. The just cause requirement is, in effect, an extension of the protections already afforded to private housing tenants during the term of the lease. Even with a just cause requirement, landlords may still initiate formal eviction proceedings if a tenant rejects the owners reasons for termination and holds over (stays in the property past the noticed vacate date) following receipt of a notice of termination or nonrenewal. In that case, the existence of cause meeting the standards of the ordinance would be litigated. Recent scholarship has drawn attention to the prevalence and detrimental effects of both formal evictions and lease terminations, sometimes known as “informal evictions”. Dr. Matthew 82 Minnesota Statute 504B.285 provides a defense to eviction when the landlord terminates a tenancy by notice to quit, increases rent, or decreases services in retaliation against a tenant’s good faith attempt to enforce the tenant’s rights. However, in order to raise the defense, an eviction action needs to be filed by the owner, a risk many tenants are not willing to take considering the damage an eviction filing can have on finding future housing.