Opinion
A22-1441
03-13-2023
Sela Investments Ltd, LLP, Respondent, v. Andre Harris, Appellant, Ladasia Tolliver, et al., Defendants.
Ramsey County District Court File No. 62-HG-CV-22-1934
Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Cochran, Judge; and Slieter, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
RANDALL J. SLIETER, JUDGE
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant Andre Harris challenges his eviction for nonpayment of rent. Because the issue was inadequately briefed and the record reveals no obvious error, we affirm.
2. On September 28, 2022, respondent Sela Investments Ltd.'s eviction complaint against Harris came before a referee for a remote hearing. Because Harris did not request a transcript of the hearing for purposes of this appeal, the only record of the proceeding is a statement in the resulting order that Harris "appeared briefly for discussions, but disconnected and did not return." The referee's order, which was adopted by the district court, granted default judgment against Harris based on nonpayment of rent. The district court allowed Harris the statutory maximum of seven days to pay rent owed. See Minn. Stat. §§ 504B.345, subd. 1(d) (allowing the district court to stay a writ of recovery up to seven days "upon a showing by the defendant that immediate restitution of the premises would work a substantial hardship upon the defendant or the defendant's family"), .291, subd. 1(a) (2022) (allowing tenant to redeem tenancy "at any time before possession has been delivered"). Two weeks after entering default judgment, and upon Sela's request, the district court issued a writ of recovery for the property.
3. "[O]n appeal error is never presumed," but must be shown "affirmatively before there can be reversal." Midway Ctr. Assocs. v. Midway Ctr., Inc., 237 N.W.2d 76, 78 (Minn. 1975) (quoting Waters v. Fiebelkorn, 13 N.W.2d 461, 464 (Minn. 1944)). Alleged errors that are "not supported by any argument or authorities . . . [are] waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection." Surf &Sand, Inc. v. Gardebring, 457 N.W.2d 782, 788 (Minn.App. 1990) (quoting Balder v. Haley, 399 N.W.2d 77, 80 (Minn. 1987)), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 20, 1990); see also Melina v. Chaplin, 327 N.W.2d 19, 20 (Minn. 1982). Moreover, appellate courts "generally may consider only those issues that the record shows were presented to and considered by the trial court." Toth v. Arason, 722 N.W.2d 437, 443 (Minn. 2006) (quoting Funchess v. Cecil Newman Corp., 632 N.W.2d 666, 673 (Minn. 2001)); see also Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988).
4. We may make some accommodations for self-represented parties, but we have also "repeatedly emphasized that pro se litigants are generally held to the same standards as attorneys." Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 629 N.W.2d 115, 119 (Minn.App. 2001). Even when we do make accommodations for a self-represented party, "that does not relieve appellants of the necessity of providing an adequate record and preserving it in a way that will permit review." Thorp Loan &Thrift Co. v. Morse, 451 N.W.2d 361, 363 (Minn.App. 1990), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 13, 1990).
5. Harris' brief cites no legal authority and simply asserts error without argument. He did not request a transcript, so we cannot say what issues he might have raised in the "discussions" the district court noted. Thus, Harris has waived any error by the district court by failing to provide an adequate argument and record for our review. Midway Ctr. Assocs., 237 N.W.2d at 78; Toth, 722 N.W.2d at 443. Moreover, to the extent that we understand Harris to argue that he did not receive proper notice of his impending eviction and should be given more time to pay the rent owed, upon "mere inspection," we see no obvious prejudicial error.
6. Harris was evicted for nonpayment of rent, and Sela submitted affidavits stating that it had complied with the statutory requirements for service of the summons by posting. See Minn. Stat. § 504B.331(d) (2022). The district court allowed Harris seven days after the hearing to redeem the property by paying the rent due and issued a writ of recovery delivering the premises to Sela 14 days after it entered default judgment. Thus, Harris was given the notice required and time to redeem the property, which has now been delivered to Sela. Therefore, we discern no obvious prejudicial error. Balder, 399 N.W.2d at 80.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's judgment is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.