Brian R. Martens, Parsinen Kaplan Levy Rosberg & Gotlieb, P.A., Suite 1100, 100 South Fifth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for appellant)

Thomas J. White, Klein & White, 200 Ridgedale State Bank Building, 1730 Plymouth Road, Minnetonka, MN 55305-1961 (for respondents)

Considered and decided by Anderson, Presiding Judge, Crippen, Judge, and Amundson, Judge.

CRIPPEN, Judge

Appellant challenges the trial-court decision dismissing its unlawful detainer action. As to respondent Steven R. Scott, appellant contends that the trial court erred in concluding that eviction would be "unconscionable" in light of Scott's rehabilitative efforts since his earlier actions warranting eviction. As to respondent Carol Norman, appellant contends that the trial court erred in finding that there was inadequate evidence to justify her eviction. We affirm in respect to respondent Norman, reverse in respect to respondent Scott, and remand for a trial court judgment consistent with our decision regarding respondent Scott.

Appellant Steven Scott Management, Inc. manages a mobile home park where respondents Steven R. Scott and Carol Norman rent a site. On December 20, 1997, Scott assaulted Norman. As a result of this attack, by letter dated August 14, 1998, appellant took steps to evict Scott and Norman on the grounds that they had "substantially annoyed and endangered other residents." Respondents refused to leave, and appellant brought an unlawful detainer action. After a bench trial, the trial court dismissed the suit.

1. Carol Norman

The trial court found that appellant "failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Norman violated Minnesota Statute 327C.09[1] or committed a material violation of the lease."[2] Appellant contends that this finding is in error, but the record supports the trial court's statement.

It is undisputed that Norman never directly endangered or annoyed other residents of the park. Appellant reasons that it can evict Norman because she has indirectly endangered other residents by allowing Scott, an allegedly dangerous person, on the premises. But the trial court found no evidence that Scott has annoyed or endangered other residents since the night he attacked Norman and no evidence of "continued dangerousness" on the part of Scott. There is no compelling evidence that these trial court findings are clearly erroneous. Absent evidence that Scott presents an ongoing danger to other residents there is no basis for evicting Norman.[3] We affirm the trial court as to Norman.

2. Steven R. Scott

The trial court found that Scott's attack on Norman was a violation of the lease and Minn. Stat. § 327C.09. But the court held that eviction would be "unconscionable" in light of Scott's rehabilitative efforts. As appellant contends, there is no legal authority permitting the trial court to withhold a remedy solely because, after an attack constituting grounds for eviction, the tenant has shown evidence of rehabilitation.

Respondents contend that Scott's violent acts do not establish a basis for eviction because the trial court found that Scott did not endanger or substantially annoy residents other than Norman. But respondents submit no authority for the proposition that Norman is not among the residents whose endangerment justifies eviction under the governing statute or the pertinent lease. Respondents discuss cases suggesting the limits of landlord liability for harm arising from tenant conduct, but these cases are not dispositive of the question. Because the findings that Scott violated the lease and Minn. Stat. § 327C.09 are sufficient to compel the issuance of an unlawful detainer order against him, we reverse the trial court as to Scott.

3. Waiver

Respondents contend that the trial court erred in failing to determine that appellant waived its right to bring an unlawful detainer action by accepting respondents' August 1997 rent. We cannot address this issue because respondents did not file a notice of review as required by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 106.

We affirm the trial court as to Carol Norman, reverse as to Steven R. Scott, and remand for issuance of an appropriate unlawful detainer order as to the tenancy of respondent Scott.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

[1] Minnesota law provides that the owner of a mobile home park may recover possession of the land if a resident acts in a manner that "endangers" or "substantially annoys" other residents of the park. Minn. Stat. § 327C.09, subd. 5 (1998).

[2] The lease provides that the park owner may terminate the tenancy of a resident for even a single act or threat of violence.

[3] Appellant anticipates that an affirmance of the trial court's decision about Norman may pose a threat of Scott's continued residency as Norman's guest. But neither the trial court nor this court is entitled on the record in these proceedings to control Norman's behavior in this respect. The present holding is based on the inadequacy of evidence to show a continuing danger, but nothing in this holding precludes other lawful proceedings, on facts arising after the trial of this case, or on legal bases other than those that arose in this case, to address the question of whether Norman's present or future choices are lawful.