This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2000).







Chantal Cash,

John Richter,


Michael Czock,

Patricia Czock,


Filed May 14, 2002


Peterson, Judge


Wright County District Court

File No. C8011703


Chantal Cash and John Richter, RR 2, Box 24-4, Hagen Avenue, Erskine, MN  56535 (pro se appellants)


Michael Czock and Patricia Czock, 813 Elm Avenue, Delano, MN  55328 (pro se respondents)


            Considered and decided by Schumacher, Presiding Judge, Peterson, Judge, and Poritsky, Judge.*

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N


            In this appeal from an order granting their motion for expungement of an eviction case, pro se appellant-tenants Chantal Cash and John Richter contend that the district court failed to address their claim that they were illegally locked out of the house they rented.  We affirm.


            Respondent-landlords Michael and Patricia Czock brought an eviction action and recovered possession of a house that they had rented to appellants.  Appellants later brought a motion captioned, “Motion For Expungement of Eviction Case.”[1]  It appears that on October 5, 2001, the day the motion was scheduled for a hearing, the parties reached an agreement regarding expungement, and based on this agreement, the district court ordered expungement of the eviction case court file.


            In their motion for expungement, appellants asked the court to expunge the eviction case file and seal the record because, “[Respondents] never got a legal writ.  MN 504B.411 prohibits landlord from retaliation.  Cannot evict without a writ, landlords illegally locked us out.”  Appellants contend that in the expungement order, the district court failed to address their claim that respondents illegally locked them out of the house they rented.  But appellants have not cited any authority that required the district court to make findings of fact or to specifically address in the expungement order each individual reason the moving party stated as a basis for seeking expungement.

            Appellants state in their brief that they filed this appeal

to include the illegal lock-out into the expungement file for the purpose of the recovery of our damage deposit and to consolidate the two cases as one.


Also, appellants included in the appendix of their brief copies of Minn. Stat. §§ 504B.225, .231, .365, subd.5, and .375 (2000), which all address remedies for the improper ouster of a tenant by a landlord.  This statement and the copies of these statutes suggest that appellants believe that they are entitled to a remedy for the alleged illegal lockout by respondents.  But there is nothing in any of these statutes that suggests that any remedy they provide can be obtained by bringing a motion for expungement. 

            The district court granted appellants the expungement they requested.  Appellants have not demonstrated that any other relief that they may have intended to seek could be obtained by bringing a motion for expungement.  Because appellants have not demonstrated any error by the district court in granting their motion for expungement, we affirm.  See White v. Minn. Dep’t of Natural Res., 567 N.W.2d 724, 735 (Minn. App. 1997) (on appeal, error is never presumed and must be made to appear affirmatively before there can be reversal; burden of showing error rests upon one who relies upon it), review denied (Minn. Oct. 31, 1997).


*   Retired judge of the district court, serving as judge of the Minnesota  Court of Appeals by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

[1]Appellants have included a copy of their motion in the appendix of their appellate brief, but there is no similar motion in the district court file.  The district court file, however, does include an affidavit of service of the motion on respondents.