Court of Appeals Reinforces Limits on Judicial Authority in LSNM Expungement Cases

By Jessica Faunce, LSNM Staff Attorney

Between November 11, 2024, and January 3, 2025, Kevin Carrell, staff attorney with Legal Services of Northwest Minnesota (LSNM), submitted requests on behalf of three tenants for mandatory expungement of eviction records that were more than three years old under Minn. Stat. § 484.014, Subd. 3(5). In all three cases, the district court granted the requests but stayed the expungement orders until the monetary judgments had been satisfied. All three tenants had outstanding balances for costs and disbursements, and attorneys’ fees, amounting to under $600 each.

The three cases were consolidated on appeal, and LSNM staff attorney Jessica Faunce drafted the Appellant’s Brief, arguing that Minn. Stat. § 484.014, Subd. 3(5) was unambiguous and did not permit the district court to stay the mandatory expungement orders. Additionally, expungement would not preclude the landlords from pursuing collection efforts under Minn. Stat. § 548.09. Notably, none of the landlords involved had completed the process to enforce their respective judgements.

On the same day that the Appellant’s Brief was filed, the Court of Appeals issued its decision in Sela Investments. Sela Invs., Ltd. LLP v. J. H., 22 N.W.3d 181, 183 (Minn. Ct. App. 2025), review granted (July 30, 2025).[1]

In Sela, the Court of Appeals determined that Minn. Stat. § 484.014, Subd. 3(7)[2], which mandates expungement upon receiving an affidavit of compliance with the terms of a settlement agreement by the tenant, is unconstitutional because it violates the separation-of-powers doctrine. This is because the judicial branch of government has the inherent authority to “make the final decision” and to manage its own records, including whether court records may be expunged. The Court of Appeals determined that by mandating expungement based solely on the tenant’s motion and without any decision-making by the district court, Subd. 3(7) infringed upon the court’s inherent authority to hear and decide cases. The Court of Appeals limited its decision to Subd. 3(7), declining to strike down any other provisions of the eviction expungement statute.

In July 2025, LSNM staff attorney Delaney Jacobson presented oral argument in the eviction expungement appeal.

In its decision issued August 20, 2025, the Court of Appeals remanded the cases to the district court to provide reasoning and authority for the stays. The Court of Appeals noted that the district court’s orders did not cite any authority – whether a precedential opinion, a statute, a rule, or its inherent authority – to stay the expungement orders pending the satisfaction of the outstanding monetary judgements. The Court of Appeals also noted that at the district court level, landlords in two of the three cases did not participate in expungement proceedings and did not present information about the outstanding monetary balances to the district court. The Court of Appeals reminded the district court that it must limit its decision to information presented to it by the parties, and if the parties present no information, then it must rule on the motion without regard to any possible monetary judgements.

The Court of Appeals declined to reach the landlord’s argument that Minn. Stat. § 484.014, Subd. 3(5) was unconstitutional under Sela.

Although the remand leaves the ultimate outcome for these tenants unresolved, the decision is encouraging for renters and advocates. The Court of Appeals reaffirmed that district courts cannot go beyond the record to deny or delay relief and must identify proper legal authority when imposing conditions on expungement. In the wake of Sela this opinion offers hope that Subd. 3(5) will remain intact.

[1] The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review of Sela on July 30, 2025. The briefing period is expected to conclude in mid-October, at which time oral arguments will be scheduled.

[2] The Sela opinion indicates that Subd. 3(a)(6) is unconstitutional, but upon close reading of the opinion and the relevant statute, the discussion is, in fact, centered around Subd. 3(a)(7), which states: “The court shall, without motion by any party except for clauses (6) and (7), order expungement of an eviction case…upon motion of a defendant, if the case is settled and the defendant fulfills the terms of the settlement.” This error has not been corrected or addressed in the Sela opinion.