Court says landlord’s post-fire lockout was unlawful

A man was locked out of his apartment by his landlord following a fire that broke out in his neighbor’s residence. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that, while the city determined that the apartment was not habitable until repairs had been finished, the padlock constituted an unlawful lockout as it was done without judicial process.

“Minnesota law is clear that the only lawful means for a landlord to dispossess a tenant with a right to possess premises, in the absence of a tenant’s abandonment or voluntary surrender, is judicial process,” wrote Judge Rachel Bond in the precedential opinion.

Tyrone Murphy rented a New Hope apartment owned and managed by Aeon, Steven Scott Management Inc. and Kings Major LLC for over a decade. In June 2022, Murphy was informed that his month-to-month lease would be terminated at the end of August due to Murphy’s allegedly disruptive behaviors.

But just a month later, a fire broke out on the balcony of a neighbor’s apartment. It spread to the tenant’s apartment, causing damage. Murphy left for the evening, returning to the apartment the next day. However, police told Murphy he was not allowed in the apartment. Subsequently, Murphy returned with a police sergeant. It was then that Murphy discovered that the landlord placed a padlock on the apartment door, and Murphy was unable to enter the apartment or get his belongings.

The landlord apparently installed the door padlock after the city of New Hope placed a notice on the door of Murphy’s apartment, stating that it was “unlawful to occupy this unit until all corrections have been made and inspected by the city of New Hope.” However, the city did not require or request that Murphy’s apartment be padlocked. The landlord did not seek judicial approval to padlock Murphy’s apartment.

A couple of weeks later, Murphy filed a lockout petition and emergency tenant remedies action (ETRA) claim against the landlord. Murphy stated that he slept in hotels and his car while the apartment was being repaired, missed work, and had to buy replacement clothing and hygiene items. He sought alternative housing costs and consequential damages.

The landlord maintained that it padlocked the door to prevent tenant from occupying the apartment as directed by the city.

“We’ve seen the fires in California. People have been prohibited from even going back to their houses, let alone into their houses, because of the damage,” argued Christopher Kalla, who represented Steven Scott Management, Inc. and Kings Manor, LLC.

The landlord also asserted that it would have allowed access to the apartment had Murphy contacted them.

“The landlord did not exclude Mr. Murphy,” Kalla stressed, asserting that Murphy was given the option to set up a time and get his possessions.

While the referee recommended that the district court finding that this was an unlawful lockout and that Murphy was entitled to alternative housing costs and consequential damages, the district court reversed. The district court concluded that it either was not a lockout, because the landlord was complying with the city, or, if it was a lockout, it was not unlawful. The court also found that the ETRA statute did not permit monetary or consequential damages, nor does it require the landlord to provide alternative housing when the fire was not caused by the landlord.

The court considered whether the landlord’s padlock installation without judicial process was lawful or not, given that the city deemed the apartment temporarily uninhabitable. Plaintiff argued that the padlock amounted to a self-help eviction.

“To be clear, in Minnesota, a self-help lockout is always unlawful, by definition,” said Erica Holzer, partner at Maslon LLP, who represented Murphy. “That’s a separate question from whether the tenant has a lawful right to be there.”

“What a landlord cannot do, no exceptions, is put a padlock on that tenant’s door. And what we don’t want to do is start creating exceptions, now, in Minnesota,” said Holzer.

The court agreed. “[T]he lockout statute contains no language suggesting that a landlord may lawfully forgo judicial proceedings and exclude a residential tenant from their rented premises as long as the landlord offers the tenant the opportunity to retrieve their belongings,” Bond asserted. “We emphasize that judicial remedies are available for a landlord to exclude a tenant from rental premises lawfully.”

The court reversed the district court. Additionally, it remanded for determination of consequential damages and alternative housing costs, finding that the district court may award.