Retro Case Files: Parkin v. Fitzgerald--Retaliation

From the Retro Case Files: 1976
Parkin v. Fitzgerald

What It Means

The Parkin case established the standard courts use to determine if an eviction is retaliatory, but only after the state’s anti-retaliation statute applies. If it applies, a landlord must establish a substantial non-retaliatory reason for the eviction, arising at or within a reasonably short time before service of the notice to quit. If you remember anything, remember ‘substantial non-retaliatory reason’ and ‘arising at or within a short time before service of the notice to quit.’

Here’s the story:

In 1974, a group of tenants rented a house in Minneapolis. There was no written lease. When the tenants moved into the house in March, the landlord verbally agreed to make certain repairs. By July, when repairs had not been made, the tenants notified the landlord by mail of the need to fix the leaky pipes, the kitchen ceiling, the back porch, and other items. The tenants also notified the landlord that they would withhold rent if the repairs were not made within 30 days. No repairs were made. On July 22, the Minneapolis Department of Inspections inspected the house and cited eight violations of the Minneapolis Housing Maintenance Code. Within a week of the inspection, the landlord gave the tenants a 30-day notice to vacate the house.

The tenants refused to pay rent for the month of August, and the landlord brought an eviction action against the tenants the following month. The tenants deposited their rent with the court and asserted that repairs were needed and that the eviction was in retaliation for requesting the repairs.

The Minnesota Supreme Court found that the state’s anti-retaliation statute clearly applied to the tenants’ case. The Court said that (1) The statute applied to oral or written lease agreements; (2) The tenants’ request for repairs was a good-faith attempt to enforce their protected rights; (3) The report to the housing inspector was a good-faith report to a governmental authority; and (4) The landlord served the notice to quit within 90 days of the request for repairs and report to the housing inspector.

Because the court found that the statute applied, the landlord had to establish a non-retaliatory purpose for the eviction. This was the first time the Minnesota Supreme Court had considered this issue.

After reviewing cases from other courts, the Minnesota Supreme Court adopted the following standard:

A landlord must establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence a substantial nonretaliatory reason for the eviction, arising at or within a reasonably short time before service of the notice to quit. A nonretaliatory reason is a reason wholly unrelated to and unmotivated by any good-faith activity on the part of the tenant protected by the statute (e.g. nonpayment of rent, other material breach of covenant, continuing damage to premises by tenants, or removal of housing from market for a sound business reason). Such a standard will give full protection to tenants and will enhance the legislative policy of liberal construction of statutory covenants to insure adequate housing.

Applying the standard to the tenants’ case, the Court rejected the landlord’s “non-retaliatory” reasons, specifically stating that:

1. A bounced check in March was insufficient nonretaliatory reason for eviction because payment was accepted by the landlord at a later time, and landlord waived the right to complain of this breach by failing to serve an eviction notice until 5 months later.
2. Failure to pay rent in August was insufficient nonretaliatory reason because it occurred after the July 29 eviction notice.
3. Complaints that the tenants had a dog was an insufficient nonretaliatory reason because the Landlord had prior knowledge of the dog, the dog caused no damage, and the Landlord had previously acquiesced to its presence.
4. The eviction notice came within five days of the inspector’s visit and at the same time as discussions between the Landlord and Tenants about the rate of completion of the repairs, at which time the Landlord said that if the Tenants were in a hurry to have the repairs done, they could leave.
   

The Parkin case continues to be an important landlord-tenant case around the issue of retaliatory evictions. It set the standard for all courts to follow, and it is continues to be an essential case to know when dealing with allegations of retaliation.

--Anna Petosky, Editor