Unlawful Ouster Or Exclusion

Defending Against Unlawful Ouster or Exclusion Charges in Minneapolis-St. Paul: Understanding Minnesota’s Landlord-Tenant Protections

Accusations of unlawful ouster or exclusion under Minnesota Statute § 609.606 represent serious allegations against landlords or their agents, carrying criminal misdemeanor penalties. This law is designed to protect tenants from illegal self-help eviction tactics, such as being physically removed from a property or having essential services like electricity or water intentionally interrupted with the aim of forcing them out. For individuals, property managers, and landlords in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, including Minneapolis, St. Paul, and surrounding Hennepin, Ramsey, Anoka, and Dakota counties, a clear understanding of this statute is crucial. A conviction can lead to fines, potential jail time, and significant damage to one’s reputation and ability to manage rental properties.

Navigating a charge of unlawful ouster or exclusion requires a comprehensive grasp of what constitutes an “unlawful” act, the element of “intent,” and the specific actions prohibited by Minnesota law. The statute aims to ensure that evictions are handled through proper legal channels, not through direct, coercive measures by landlords. For those accused, it is vital to understand that the prosecution must prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Exploring all available defenses and understanding the nuances of landlord-tenant law in the Twin Cities is essential for a robust response to these charges and for safeguarding one’s rights and interests within the Minnesota legal system.

Minnesota Statute § 609.606: The Legal Foundation Against Unlawful Eviction Tactics

Minnesota state law provides specific criminal penalties for landlords or their agents who resort to illegal self-help measures to remove a tenant. This offense, known as Unlawful Ouster or Exclusion, is codified under Minnesota Statute § 609.606. The statute clearly outlines the prohibited actions and the intent required to constitute this misdemeanor crime, serving as a critical protection for tenants throughout Minnesota, including those in Minneapolis and St. Paul.

609.606 UNLAWFUL OUSTER OR EXCLUSION.

A landlord, agent of the landlord, or person acting under the landlord’s direction or control who unlawfully and intentionally removes or excludes a tenant from lands or tenements or intentionally interrupts or causes the interruption of electrical, heat, gas, or water services to the tenant with intent to unlawfully remove or exclude the tenant from lands or tenements is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Key Elements of an Unlawful Ouster or Exclusion Charge in Minnesota: What Prosecutors Must Prove in Hennepin County Courts

In any criminal proceeding within Minnesota, including those adjudicated in Hennepin County or Ramsey County courts, the prosecution bears the significant burden of proving every essential element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. For a conviction of Unlawful Ouster or Exclusion under Minnesota Statute § 609.606, the state must meticulously establish several specific facts related to the identity of the accused, their actions, their intentions, and the status of the victim as a tenant. A failure to substantiate even one of these elements with sufficient evidence can, and should, lead to a dismissal of the charges or an acquittal. It is therefore imperative for any landlord or agent accused of this offense in the Twin Cities area to understand these foundational components of the state’s case.

• Accused is a Landlord, Agent, or Person Acting Under Landlord’s Control: The prosecution must first identify the accused and prove their status as a “landlord, agent of the landlord, or person acting under the landlord’s direction or control.” This element establishes the necessary relationship between the accused and the management or ownership of the rental property. Evidence might include lease agreements identifying the landlord, property management contracts, or testimony showing the accused was acting on the landlord’s instructions in a Minneapolis rental property. Simply being a property owner is not enough if the accused was not acting in a landlord capacity relative to the alleged victim.
• Victim is a Tenant: The state must prove that the individual allegedly ousted or excluded, or whose services were interrupted, was a “tenant.” This typically means someone who has a legal right to occupy the “lands or tenements” (the rental property), usually established through a lease agreement, whether written or oral, or by other conduct recognized under Minnesota landlord-tenant law. If the person was a squatter, a guest who overstayed without establishing tenancy, or an occupant without legal right in a St. Paul apartment, this element might not be met.
• Unlawful and Intentional Removal or Exclusion OR Intentional Interruption of Essential Services: The prosecution must prove one of two prohibited actions:
  • That the accused unlawfully and intentionally removed or excluded a tenant from the lands or tenements. This could involve changing locks, physically barring entry, or removing the tenant’s belongings to prevent their occupancy. The act must be both unlawful (not through a court-ordered eviction) and intentional.
  • OR, that the accused intentionally interrupted or caused the interruption of electrical, heat, gas, or water services to the tenant. This involves a deliberate act to shut off these essential utilities.
• Specific Intent to Unlawfully Remove or Exclude the Tenant (Applies to Both Prongs): Crucially, for either type of prohibited action (physical removal/exclusion OR interruption of services), the prosecution must prove that the accused acted with the intent to unlawfully remove or exclude the tenant from lands or tenements. This means the landlord’s purpose in shutting off the heat in a Ramsey County winter, for example, must have been to force the tenant out illegally, not merely due to a billing dispute or necessary emergency repairs (unless those repairs are a pretext for ouster). This specific intent is a critical mens rea element.

Misdemeanor Penalties for Unlawful Ouster or Exclusion Convictions in Minnesota

A conviction for Unlawful Ouster or Exclusion under Minnesota Statute § 609.606 is classified as a misdemeanor. While this is the lowest level of criminal offense in Minnesota, it still carries significant potential penalties and collateral consequences that landlords, property managers, and their agents in the Twin Cities area, including Minneapolis and St. Paul, should not underestimate. These consequences can impact one’s finances, liberty, and professional reputation.

Misdemeanor Penalties: Jail Time and Fines

Under Minnesota law, a misdemeanor conviction is punishable by:

• Imprisonment: A sentence of up to 90 days in jail.
• Fine: A financial penalty of up to $1,000.A judge in Hennepin County, Ramsey County, or any other Minnesota jurisdiction where the offense occurred has the discretion to impose either jail time, a fine, or both. The specific sentence will often depend on the egregiousness of the conduct, whether the tenant suffered significant hardship (e.g., loss of shelter in winter, damage to property), and the defendant’s prior record, if any. Even if jail time is not imposed, a substantial fine and a criminal conviction can result.

Additional Consequences Beyond Criminal Penalties

Beyond the direct criminal sanctions, a conviction for unlawful ouster can lead to:

• Criminal Record: This can affect future employment opportunities, especially in property management or positions of trust.
• Civil Lawsuits: Tenants who have been unlawfully ousted often have grounds for a civil lawsuit against the landlord for damages, which can include recovery of possession, actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees under other Minnesota statutes (e.g., Minnesota Statutes Chapter 504B, the Landlord and Tenant Act). A criminal conviction can strengthen a tenant’s civil case.
• Reputational Damage: A conviction can severely damage a landlord’s reputation in the Twin Cities housing market, making it harder to attract responsible tenants.

Illustrative Examples of Unlawful Ouster or Exclusion in the Twin Cities Metro Area

The concept of unlawful ouster or exclusion, as defined by Minnesota Statute § 609.606, covers specific actions taken by landlords or their agents to improperly remove tenants. Understanding how this law applies in practical situations is important for both landlords and tenants in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and the surrounding Hennepin and Ramsey County communities. These examples demonstrate conduct that could lead to misdemeanor charges.

The core of this offense lies in a landlord bypassing the legal eviction process and resorting to “self-help” measures. These actions are deemed unlawful because Minnesota law prescribes a specific court procedure for evicting tenants, designed to protect the rights of both parties. Intentionally circumventing this process by directly removing a tenant or cutting off essential services to force them out is what § 609.606 aims to prevent.

Example: Changing Locks on a Minneapolis Apartment

A landlord in Minneapolis is frustrated with a tenant who is behind on rent. Instead of filing an eviction action in Hennepin County court, the landlord waits until the tenant is at work, then changes the locks on the apartment door, preventing the tenant from re-entering. The landlord’s intent is clearly to remove the tenant from the premises due to the rent issue. This act of unlawfully and intentionally excluding the tenant from their dwelling, with the intent to remove them, would constitute Unlawful Ouster or Exclusion.

Example: Shutting Off Utilities in a St. Paul Rental House During Winter

A property manager for a rental house in St. Paul wants to get a tenant to move out quickly so the property can be sold. The tenant has a valid lease. The manager intentionally contacts the utility companies and has the heat and electricity shut off during a cold Minnesota winter, knowing this will make the house uninhabitable. The manager’s clear intent in causing the interruption of these essential services is to unlawfully force the tenant to vacate the premises. This would be a violation of § 609.606.

Example: Removing a Tenant’s Belongings from a Dakota County Room Rental

A person rents a room in a Dakota County house under an oral month-to-month agreement, making them a tenant. The homeowner (landlord) decides they want the room back immediately for a relative. Without giving proper notice or going through the eviction process, the landlord enters the tenant’s room while they are away, packs up their belongings, and puts them on the porch, telling the tenant they can no longer live there. This unlawful and intentional removal of the tenant from their rented space, with the intent to exclude them, falls under the statute.

Example: Falsely Claiming Emergency Repairs to Justify Utility Interruption in Anoka County

A landlord in Anoka County wants to renovate an apartment currently occupied by a tenant who is not violating their lease. To encourage the tenant to leave, the landlord shuts off the water supply to the apartment, claiming there’s an “emergency plumbing issue” that requires the water to be off indefinitely. However, no such emergency exists, and no repairs are being made. The intentional interruption of water service, done with the intent to unlawfully make the tenant move out, would be a criminal offense under § 609.606. The pretext of an emergency would not excuse the unlawful intent.

Building a Strong Defense Against Unlawful Ouster or Exclusion Allegations in Minneapolis

Facing an accusation of Unlawful Ouster or Exclusion under Minnesota Statute § 609.606 in the Twin Cities area—whether in Minneapolis, St. Paul, or counties like Washington or Carver—requires a landlord or their agent to mount a robust defense. The prosecution must prove every element of this misdemeanor offense, including the unlawfulness of the act, the specific intent to oust the tenant, and the landlord-tenant relationship, beyond a reasonable doubt. An arrest or charge is not a definitive finding of guilt; individuals have the right to challenge the allegations and present evidence in their defense. A detailed understanding of landlord-tenant law and the specific requirements of § 609.606 is fundamental.

A proactive defense strategy often involves a meticulous examination of the actions taken, the communications between the landlord and tenant, the status of any lease agreement, and the true intent behind any alleged removal or service interruption. For those in the Twin Cities, particularly landlords or property managers in Hennepin or Ramsey County, working with legal counsel who is well-versed in both criminal defense and landlord-tenant law can provide a significant advantage. The objective is to achieve the most favorable outcome, which could be a dismissal, an acquittal, or a resolution that minimizes penalties and reputational damage, by diligently exploring all available legal defenses.

Lack of Requisite Intent to Unlawfully Oust

The statute requires a specific intent: “with intent to unlawfully remove or exclude the tenant.” If the actions were taken for a different reason, or if there was no intent to unlawfully oust, this element may not be met.

• No Intent to Oust: The defense could argue that any interruption of services was due to legitimate reasons unrelated to ousting the tenant, such as necessary emergency repairs that genuinely required temporary shutoff, a billing error by the utility company not caused by the landlord, or a system-wide outage affecting a Minneapolis apartment complex.
• Belief in Lawful Action: A landlord might have mistakenly believed their actions were lawful, perhaps due to a misunderstanding of complex eviction procedures or reliance on incorrect advice (though ignorance of the law is generally not a complete defense, it can sometimes impact the “intentional and unlawful” aspect). This would be a nuanced argument for a St. Paul property dispute.
• Actions Aimed at Property Protection, Not Ouster: If services were interrupted temporarily to prevent significant property damage (e.g., shutting off water due to a major leak the tenant failed to report), and not to force the tenant out, the specific intent to unlawfully oust might be absent.

Lawful Process or Claim of Right

If the landlord was acting within the bounds of a lawful eviction process or had another legitimate claim of right regarding the property or services, the “unlawfully” element is negated.

• Following Court-Ordered Eviction: If the tenant had already been lawfully evicted through a court order (an eviction action, formerly known as unlawful detainer, in Hennepin County court) and was merely refusing to vacate post-judgment, actions taken consistent with enforcing that order might be defensible, though extreme care is needed.
• Tenant Abandonment: If the tenant had genuinely abandoned the property, and the landlord took steps to secure it or discontinue services to an empty unit in Ramsey County, this would not be an unlawful ouster of an existing tenant. Proving abandonment according to Minnesota law would be key.
• Lease Agreement Provisions (Limited Defense): While lease terms cannot typically authorize unlawful self-help evictions, certain lease clauses regarding utility responsibilities or property access for repairs, if lawfully applied, might be relevant context, though unlikely to excuse an intentional unlawful ouster.

Disputing the Landlord-Tenant Relationship or Tenant Status

The statute specifically applies to actions against a “tenant.” If the individual involved did not legally qualify as a tenant at the time of the alleged incident, the statute may not apply.

• No Landlord-Tenant Relationship: The accused might not be the “landlord” or a recognized “agent” as defined by law. Or, the alleged victim might not meet the definition of a “tenant” – for example, they could be a guest, a squatter with no prior agreement, or an occupant whose tenancy rights had already been lawfully terminated through proper legal process in a Dakota County property.
• Lease Expired and No Holdover Tenancy: If a lease had expired, proper notice to quit was given, and no holdover tenancy was created under Minnesota law, the individual’s right to possession might have already ended, though a formal eviction action is still generally required to remove them. This is a complex area requiring careful legal analysis.

No Actual Removal, Exclusion, or Interruption of Essential Services

The prosecution must prove the prohibited act occurred. If there was no actual removal, exclusion, or if the alleged interruption of services was minor, temporary, or not of an “essential” service as listed (electrical, heat, gas, water), this could be a defense.

• Services Not Actually Interrupted by Landlord: The defense could show that utility services were cut off by the utility company for non-payment by the tenant (if the tenant was responsible for direct payment), or due to a broader outage not caused by the landlord of an Anoka County rental.
• Brief, Justified Interruption: A very brief, temporary interruption for legitimate, emergency maintenance that was quickly restored, with proper communication to the tenant, might not rise to the level of an intentional interruption “with intent to unlawfully remove or exclude.”
• No Actual Exclusion: If the tenant was never actually prevented from accessing their dwelling in Washington County, for instance, if locks were discussed but not changed, or if access was quickly restored, the element of “removes or excludes” might be contested.

Answering Your Questions About Unlawful Ouster or Exclusion in Minnesota (Minnesota Statute § 609.606)

If you are a landlord or tenant in Minnesota, particularly in the Twin Cities area including Minneapolis and St. Paul, understanding Minnesota Statute § 609.606 regarding unlawful ouster or exclusion is vital. Here are answers to some frequently asked questions about this law.

What exactly does “unlawful ouster or exclusion” mean in Minnesota?

Under Minnesota Statute § 609.606, it means a landlord (or their agent) unlawfully and intentionally either (1) physically removes or excludes a tenant from their rental property, or (2) intentionally cuts off essential services like electricity, heat, gas, or water, with the specific intent of forcing the tenant out of the property illegally (without a court order).

Who can be charged with unlawful ouster in Minneapolis or St. Paul?

The statute applies to a “landlord, agent of the landlord, or person acting under the landlord’s direction or control.” This means property owners, property managers, or anyone they direct to take such actions against a tenant in Minneapolis, St. Paul, or anywhere in Minnesota can be charged.

Is it always illegal for a landlord in Hennepin County to change the locks?

If a tenant is currently residing in the property under a valid lease or tenancy agreement, a landlord in Hennepin County cannot simply change the locks to kick them out. Doing so with the intent to unlawfully exclude the tenant is a misdemeanor. Locks can generally only be changed by the landlord with the tenant’s consent, or after a lawful eviction process and the tenant has vacated.

What are considered “essential services” under this Ramsey County-relevant statute?

Minnesota Statute § 609.606 specifically lists “electrical, heat, gas, or water services.” Intentionally interrupting these services to a tenant with the intent to unlawfully force them out is a crime.

What if a tenant in Dakota County hasn’t paid rent? Can the landlord shut off utilities?

No. Even if a tenant in Dakota County is behind on rent, the landlord cannot resort to self-help measures like shutting off essential utilities to try and force them to pay or move out. The proper procedure is to go through the court eviction process. Shutting off utilities with intent to oust is a misdemeanor.

Is a verbal warning to leave enough, or does a landlord in Anoka County need a court order?

A verbal warning to leave is generally not sufficient to legally remove a tenant who has established tenancy. In Anoka County, as elsewhere in Minnesota, a landlord must typically obtain a court order (an eviction order, formerly known as a writ of recovery) through a formal eviction action to lawfully remove a tenant who does not vacate voluntarily after proper notice.

What kind of penalties can a landlord face for unlawful ouster in Washington County?

Unlawful ouster or exclusion is a misdemeanor in Washington County and all of Minnesota. This means a conviction can result in up to 90 days in jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. There can also be significant civil penalties and damages payable to the tenant.

Does this law apply if there’s no written lease in Minneapolis?

Yes, this law can still apply. Oral lease agreements can create a valid tenancy in Minneapolis. If a landlord-tenant relationship exists, even without a written lease, the landlord cannot unlawfully oust the tenant or shut off essential services with intent to force them out.

What if the landlord in St. Paul claims the utility interruption was for emergency repairs?

If the utility interruption was genuinely for necessary emergency repairs and not intended to unlawfully remove the tenant, it might not be a violation. However, the landlord would need to prove the emergency, the necessity of the shutoff, and that the action wasn’t a pretext to force the tenant out. The duration and communication regarding such repairs would also be relevant in a St. Paul case.

Can a tenant sue a landlord for unlawful ouster in addition to criminal charges being filed in Hennepin County?

Yes. A tenant who has been unlawfully ousted or had services illegally cut off in Hennepin County can pursue a civil lawsuit against the landlord. Minnesota statutes (like those in Chapter 504B) provide for remedies such as regaining possession, actual damages, potential treble damages, and attorney’s fees. Criminal charges under § 609.606 are separate from these civil remedies.

What is the difference between a lawful eviction and an unlawful ouster in Ramsey County?

A lawful eviction in Ramsey County involves the landlord following specific legal procedures, which typically include giving the tenant proper written notice, filing an eviction action in court, obtaining a court judgment, and having a sheriff execute a writ of recovery if the tenant doesn’t leave. Unlawful ouster involves bypassing these legal steps and using self-help tactics like changing locks or cutting utilities.

What if the property in the Twin Cities is truly abandoned by the tenant?

If a tenant has legally abandoned the rental property according to Minnesota law (which has specific criteria), the landlord may have the right to retake possession and secure the property, including managing utilities. However, a landlord must be certain of abandonment; mistaking a temporary absence for abandonment and then changing locks could lead to an unlawful ouster charge.

Does “intent to unlawfully remove or exclude” have to be the only intent?

The statute requires that the landlord act “with intent to unlawfully remove or exclude the tenant.” While a landlord might have other frustrations (e.g., unpaid rent), if the specific intent behind the utility shutoff or lock change was to force the tenant out without a court order, that satisfies the intent element for this crime.

If a landlord is convicted, can it affect their ability to rent out properties in Minneapolis in the future?

A criminal conviction for unlawful ouster can damage a landlord’s reputation and could potentially be considered by housing authorities or tenant screening services. While it might not legally bar them from renting properties, it could make it harder to attract good tenants or manage properties professionally in Minneapolis.

What should a tenant do if they believe their St. Paul landlord is trying to unlawfully oust them?

A tenant in St. Paul who believes they are being unlawfully ousted should seek legal assistance immediately. They can contact a tenant’s rights organization or an attorney. They should also document everything, avoid confrontation if possible, and consider calling the police, as unlawful ouster is a crime.

Beyond the Courtroom: Long-Term Impact of an Unlawful Ouster Conviction in Minnesota

A misdemeanor conviction for Unlawful Ouster or Exclusion under Minnesota Statute § 609.606, while not a felony, can carry significant and lasting collateral consequences for landlords and property managers in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. These impacts extend beyond any court-imposed fine or jail sentence, potentially affecting professional standing, financial stability, and future business operations.

Impact on Your Criminal Record and Professional Reputation

Any criminal conviction, including this misdemeanor, becomes a permanent part of an individual’s criminal record in Minnesota. For a landlord or property manager in Minneapolis or St. Paul, a conviction for unlawfully ousting a tenant can severely damage their professional reputation. This record can be accessed in background checks, potentially impacting their credibility with future tenants, business partners, lenders, and professional organizations. It suggests a disregard for tenant rights and legal processes, which is highly detrimental in the housing industry.

Professional Licensing and Business Implications for Landlords and Property Managers

While Minnesota does not have a statewide general license for all landlords, property managers who are licensed real estate brokers or salespersons could face disciplinary action from the Minnesota Department of Commerce if convicted of a crime that reflects on their honesty or trustworthiness. Furthermore, a criminal record for unlawful ouster could make it more difficult to obtain certain business loans, insurance coverage for rental properties, or to be accepted into professional landlord associations in the Twin Cities, potentially hindering business growth and networking opportunities.

Increased Scrutiny and Potential for Costly Civil Lawsuits

A criminal conviction under § 609.606 can significantly strengthen a tenant’s case in a civil lawsuit for damages. Under Minnesota’s landlord-tenant laws (specifically, Minn. Stat. § 504B.231 regarding unlawful ouster), tenants can sue for recovery of possession, treble damages or $500 (whichever is greater), and attorney’s fees. A prior criminal conviction for the same conduct makes it much harder for the landlord to defend against such a civil claim in Hennepin or Ramsey County courts, leading to substantial financial judgments and legal costs. This can create a significant financial strain.

Difficulty Attracting and Retaining Responsible Tenants in the Twin Cities Market

In today’s information age, news of legal troubles, including criminal convictions, can spread. Prospective tenants in competitive markets like Minneapolis and St. Paul often research landlords and property management companies. A record of unlawful ouster can make it significantly more challenging to attract responsible, long-term tenants. It can create an environment of distrust and may lead to higher vacancy rates or the need to accept less qualified tenants, ultimately impacting the profitability and stability of rental investments in Anoka, Dakota, or other surrounding counties.

Why Knowledgeable Legal Representation is Crucial for Unlawful Ouster Defense in the Twin Cities

When a landlord, property manager, or their agent faces an accusation of Unlawful Ouster or Exclusion under Minnesota Statute § 609.606, the implications are serious. A misdemeanor conviction can lead to a criminal record, fines, potential jail time, and significant civil liability, not to mention severe damage to one’s professional reputation in the Twin Cities housing market. Given the specific intent requirements and the interplay with complex landlord-tenant laws, securing representation from an attorney well-versed in both criminal defense and Minnesota’s housing statutes is critically important.

Navigating the Complexities of Minnesota Statute § 609.606 and Landlord-Tenant Law

The offense of unlawful ouster hinges on proving that the landlord acted “unlawfully and intentionally” with the “intent to unlawfully remove or exclude the tenant.” These terms have specific legal meanings within the context of Minnesota’s detailed landlord-tenant statutes (Chapter 504B). An attorney can analyze whether the landlord’s actions, perhaps in a disputed St. Paul rental situation, truly meet the criminal threshold, or if they fall into a gray area or a purely civil dispute. Understanding what constitutes a lawful termination of tenancy versus an unlawful self-help eviction is paramount, and legal counsel can provide this clarity.

Developing Tailored Defense Strategies Focused on Intent and Lawfulness

A strong defense against an unlawful ouster charge in Minneapolis or Hennepin County often centers on challenging the prosecution’s ability to prove the requisite criminal intent or the unlawfulness of the actions. Was the interruption of services genuinely due to an emergency repair rather than an intent to oust? Did the landlord have a good-faith, albeit mistaken, belief that their actions were permissible? Had the tenant legally abandoned the property, negating the “tenant” status? An attorney can investigate the facts, gather evidence (such as repair records or communications with the tenant), and build a defense strategy that directly addresses these crucial elements.

Protecting Against Both Criminal Penalties and Subsequent Civil Liability

A criminal charge for unlawful ouster often precedes or runs parallel to a civil lawsuit by the tenant seeking damages. A criminal conviction can be highly detrimental in a subsequent civil case in Ramsey County court. Experienced legal counsel understands this interplay and works to defend the criminal charge with an eye toward minimizing civil exposure. This might involve negotiating with the prosecutor for a resolution that avoids a damaging admission or conviction, or aggressively defending the case at trial to obtain an acquittal, thereby strengthening the landlord’s position in any civil litigation.

Ensuring Due Process and Fair Treatment in the Twin Cities Court System

Landlords, like any criminal defendant, are entitled to due process and fair treatment under the law. An attorney ensures that the client’s rights are protected throughout the legal proceedings in Dakota, Anoka, or other Twin Cities area courts. This includes ensuring the prosecution meets its high burden of proof, challenging inadmissible evidence, and presenting all viable defenses. In a situation where emotions can run high and public perception may be against landlords, having a dedicated advocate to present the landlord’s side of the story objectively and effectively is invaluable for achieving a just outcome.