In win for landlords, appeals court strikes down eviction expungement law

Life just got harder for Minnesotans who want to shed the stigma — and the practical complications — of a past eviction.

In a unanimous decision released Monday, a three-judge panel of the Minnesota Court of Appeals struck down a portion of a 2023 law designed to streamline the expungement process for evicted renters.

Under the provision in question, judges were mandated to expunge court records of eviction proceedings in cases in which the tenant has satisfied the terms of a settlement agreement.

In an opinion penned by Judge Peter Reyes, Jr., the appeals court criticized that requirement, saying that it “removes the district court’s discretion to determine whether expungement of its own records is appropriate and infringes on the judiciary’s inherent power to manage its own records.”

The ruling seems intended to protect the judiciary’s prerogatives against the encroachment of the Legislature.

“[The law] is contrary to standard court procedure, which allows the adverse party to object and the district court to decide the issue on the merits,” Reyes continued. “In essence, [it] precludes courts from considering the underlying facts of any case, considering the arguments raised by a party opposing expungement, making findings, or determining whether granting the expungement is in the best interests of society or the individual.”

The successful challenge was brought by St. Louis Park-based landlord Sela Investments, LTD, after a former tenant, identified only as “J.H.”, petitioned the Hennepin County District Court for expungement.

The details of that proceeding are scant because J.H.’s records have been expunged.

According to the briefs submitted to the appeals court, Sela commenced an eviction action against J.H. in December of 2023 over an unspecified violation of a lease. The following month, Sela and J.H. reached an agreement, and J.H. moved out by Jan. 31.

In June 2024, J.H. filed for expungement on the grounds that the agreement had been satisfied. Less than an hour later, a district court referee granted the motion and, within a few days, J.H.’s expungement was finalized by an order from the district court judge.

In a friend of the court brief, a coalition of 10 nonprofits that advocate for renters argued that the mandatory expungement provisions in the 2023 law provided vital protections from the harms that arise from having an eviction proceeding on one’s record. Overturning the law could create “grave consequences for tenants across Minnesota.”

Among other things, the advocates noted that evictions “disproportionately impact communities of color, women, victims of sexual and domestic violence, individuals with disabilities, and individuals receiving public housing assistance.”

The groups’ brief pointed to studies that showed an array of adverse health impacts arising in the wake of evictions, including worse birth outcomes for mothers and newborns, as well as significant increase in suicides.

In response, Christopher Kalla and Douglas Turner, Sela’s attorneys, wrote that the “parade of horribles” outlined by the renter advocates are “not unique to this appeal and the unconstitutionality” of the law. Kalla and Turner also argued that recent reforms to Minnesota’s renter-screening laws “provide relief to most, if not all, of the examples identified by the Intervenor.”

In its ruling, the appeals court sent J.H. ‘s expungement request back to Hennepin County District Court for consideration under a separate provision of the eviction expungement law. Under that standard, the court can order expungement in the interest of justice when “those interests are not outweighed by the public’s interest in knowing about the record.”

J.H.’s attorney, Elizabeth Frazier of the Minnesota Assistance Council for Veterans, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.