Again, if you were a random member of the public and reviewed the Court of Appeals “Opinion”, you would never see the evidence…not the photos nor the transcript nor the lower court “findings” or decision, nor the arguments made by counsel (the attorneys) in their submissions to the court. So, to support my case and provide you (whomever) a chance to review the case, I provided the transcript. I have no idea whether providing this evidence is within the legal world’s accepted practices, but I can honestly say that every single rule and principle I learned about in law school or experience that was supposed to be in play in this case was broken. So, I really don’t care, and I want the public to see how messed up the court system is and to postulate as to why they won’t publish cases regarding “ordinary wear and tear.”
Re: the Transcript…
There are a number of major issues. Specifically, as pointed out on appeal and completely ignored, the judge put the burden of proof on the WRONG PARTY!
The Statute drafted by the Minnesota legislature puts the burden on landlords. It is Minnesota Statute 504B.178, subd. 3 (c) which reads:
“(c) In any action concerning the deposit, the burden of proving, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, the reason for withholding all or any portion of the deposit shall be on the landlord.”
Now, read page 9 of the transcript.