Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A10-2211 In the Matter of the Rental Dwelling License held by Mahmood Khan for the Premises at 3223 Bryant Avenue N., Minneapolis, Minnesota. Filed September 6, 2011 Affirmed Shumaker, Judge Minneapolis Department of Regulatory Services Randall Tigue, Randall Tigue Law Office, P.A., Golden Valley, Minnesota (for relator) Susan L. Segal, Minneapolis City Attorney, Lee C. Wolf, Assistant City Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent) Considered and decided by Wright, Presiding Judge; Shumaker, Judge; and Connolly, Judge. SYLLABUS Absent evidence that hearing officers have a direct, personal, substantial pecuniary interest in rendering decisions favorable to the municipality that hires and selects them, a landlord's due-process rights are not violated when such hearing officers preside over rental-license-revocation hearings. OPINION SHUMAKER, Judge Relator Mahmood Khan challenges respondent City of Minneapolis's procedure for hiring and selecting administrative hearing officers to conduct hearings on alleged

violations of city ordinances respecting residential rentals, contending that the hearing officers have a direct, personal, substantial pecuniary interest in rendering decisions favorable to the city and that this procedure violates his due-process rights. Relator also challenges the revocation of his residential rental license, contending that there is a lack of substantial evidence to support the revocation. Because there is no evidence showing that the city's procedure for hiring and selecting hearing officers provides the hearing officers with a direct, personal, substantial pecuniary interest to decide cases in favor of the city, and because the city's decision to revoke relator's rental license is supported by substantial evidence, we affirm. FACTS Mahmood Khan holds licenses to rent approximately 40 properties that he owns in Minneapolis. One of these properties is a house located at 3223 Bryant Avenue North. There is no dispute that the house contains a legally uninhabitable basement unit. On March 12, 2009, City of Minneapolis Housing Inspector Valerie Asante conducted a conversion inspection of this property. A conversion inspection is a routine inspection of property that is rented for the first time or that is rented after having been vacant for more than a year. During her inspection, Asante observed violations of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances, including the illegal occupancy of the basement unit. The tenants told Asante they were using the basement unit as a bedroom, and Asante observed a bed and bedding there. She concluded that the legally uninhabitable basement unit was being used as a bedroom in violation of the code of ordinances, and she entered the violation in the city's database. 2

Asante also issued an order to Khan to discontinue the unlawful occupancy of the basement unit. The order notified Khan that he was not in compliance with the code and that any additional violations of the code or a failure to comply could result in revocation of his license to rent this particular property. The notice informed Khan that the order was appealable. Khan did not appeal the order. Another housing inspector inspected the property on April 27, 2009, and the basement was no longer occupied. A little more than a year later, on May 25, 2010, a subsequent group of tenants contacted the City of Minneapolis to report that the property had electrical problems and an unfinished ceiling and kitchen. Housing Inspector Sheila Rawski investigated the complaint. During her inspection, Rawski observed violations of the code, including that the basement unit contained a bed, a mattress, bedding, a dresser, a couch, a chair, a space heater, lighting, and clothes. Rawski concluded that the unit was being illegally occupied as a bedroom. Rawski later learned that this was the second violation on the property for using the legally uninhabitable basement as a bedroom, so she notified Janine Atchison, district manager of the city's Department of Housing Inspections. Atchison reviewed the evidence and confirmed that this was the property's second citation for illegal occupancy of the basement unit and that Khan had been notified the first time of the illegal occupancy. Atchison began proceedings to revoke Khan's license to rent this particular property, in accordance with the city's policy. Atchison mailed a letter to Khan notifying him of the license-revocation proceedings, and Khan was given 15 days to appeal the determination. Khan timely appealed. A hearing was held before

3

an administrative hearing officer, who heard testimony from and reviewed evidence submitted by both Khan and the city regarding the allegations of illegal occupancy. Khan testified at the hearing that he did not know the tenants were using the basement as a bedroom on either occasion until he received notice of such from the city. After receiving notice on both occasions, Khan testified that he evicted the tenants who were living in the basement. Melvin Snoddy, who helps Khan manage his rental

properties, corroborated that Khan evicted both groups of tenants after learning they were using the basement illegally. However, Snoddy asserted that Khan was aware of the second instance of illegal use of the basement and that he had already begun eviction proceedings against the tenants prior to Rawski's inspection. The administrative hearing officer concluded that Khan had twice violated the city's code of ordinances by allowing tenants to use the basement unit as a bedroom. The hearing officer specifically found Khan in violation of Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances (MCO)

Download A10-2211, In the Matter of the Rental Dwelling License held by Mahmood Khan for

Minnesota Law