## Facts

- A landlord leased restaurant premises in Osseo, Minnesota, under a five-year lease beginning December 1, 1970, requiring the tenant to obtain written permission for structural changes and to operate lawfully.
- The lease was assigned to Kathleen Berg, who operated the restaurant and later assigned the lease to her corporation, A Family Affair Restaurant, Inc.
- The landlord objected to alleged lease violations, including remodeling without written authorization and operating the restaurant in disrepair with alleged health-code violations.
- By letter dated June 29, 1973, the landlord demanded completion of specified items within two weeks and threatened to terminate the lease and retake possession.
- On July 13, 1973, Berg closed the restaurant temporarily and posted a “Closed for Renovations” sign while continuing work on the premises.
- That day, the landlord attempted to change the locks; disputes escalated and police were called by both sides during the confrontation.
- The following Monday, when Berg was absent, the landlord changed the locks and excluded her from the premises before the lease term ended.
- Berg sued for wrongful eviction and damages; the landlord asserted abandonment/surrender and counterclaimed for property damage.
- A jury found Berg had not abandoned or surrendered and that the lockout was unlawful; the trial court also ruled the reentry was forcible and wrongful as a matter of law.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported the jury’s finding that the tenant did not abandon or surrender the premises.
2. Whether the landlord’s lock change constituted a forcible and wrongful reentry as a matter of law, making the eviction unlawful.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed judgment for the tenant.
- The evidence supported the finding of no abandonment or surrender, given the temporary closure for renovations and conduct showing continued claim of possession.
- The lockout was forcible and wrongful as a matter of law.
- The court held that when a tenant has not abandoned or voluntarily surrendered and claims a right to possession, the landlord must use judicial process to recover possession.

## Legal Principles

- A landlord may not dispossess a tenant who has not abandoned or surrendered and who asserts possessory rights by changing locks or other self-help measures; the exclusive lawful method is judicial eviction.
- Temporary closure and continued activity consistent with ongoing tenancy may support a finding that the tenant did not abandon or surrender.
- Even under a “peaceable reentry” framework, reentry occurring amid an active dispute with a risk of confrontation can be treated as non-peaceable and therefore wrongful.

## Conclusion

The court barred self-help lockouts in contested-possession situations, ruling that a landlord must proceed through judicial eviction when the tenant has neither abandoned nor surrendered and continues to claim the right to possess the premises.


Berg v. Wiley, 264 N.W.2d 145 (Minn. 1978)