Ask a Minnesota lawyer whether a claim is worth bringing and you’ll get an answer about the merits. Ask whether it’ll actually get brought and you’ll get an answer about fees.
Those are different questions. The second one is decided almost entirely by the Legislature.
Minnesota’s default is the American rule: each side pays its own lawyer. On top of that, the Legislature has scattered a set of exceptions — some one-way, some two-way, one mandatory, one capped at five dollars. Lay them side by side and you get a map. And the map isn’t organized around how serious the wrong is.
It’s organized around who the Legislature thought couldn’t otherwise afford a lawyer.
The one-way shifts: fees run to the claimant only
These are the provisions that make small claims worth bringing, because they change the math for exactly one side.
Wage claims — and this one is mandatory. Minn. Stat. § 181.171, subd. 3:
In an action brought under subdivision 1, the court shall order an employer who is found to have committed a violation to pay to the aggrieved party reasonable costs, disbursements, witness fees, and attorney fees.
Shall, not may. Subdivision 1’s list reaches §§ 181.13 and 181.14, the final-paycheck provisions we covered here. A $2,800 commission dispute stops being a $2,800 dispute once that sentence attaches.
Minimum wage and overtime work the same way. Minn. Stat. § 177.27, subd. 10: “In any action brought pursuant to subdivision 8, the court shall order an employer who is found to have committed a violation or violations of sections 177.21 to 177.44 or 181.165 to pay to the employee or employees reasonable costs, disbursements, witness fees, and attorney fees.”
Non-competes run one way on purpose. Under Minn. Stat. § 181.988, the fee provision shows up twice — at subd. 2(d) for a voidness claim and subd. 3(c) for a choice-of-law claim — and both times the award runs to the employee, never the employer, and it’s discretionary (“may”). An employer that loses pays. An employer that wins just wins.
Consumers under the Consumer Fraud Act. Minn. Stat. § 325F.70, subd. 3(a) lets a consumer “recover damages, together with costs and disbursements, including costs of investigation and reasonable attorney fees,” and then adds the sentence that takes the usual threshold fight off the table: “An action brought under this section benefits the public.”
Books and records. Minn. Stat. § 302A.461, subd. 4(e) authorizes a court to “specifically enforce this section and award expenses, including attorney fees and disbursements,” to the shareholder — not to the corporation. We wrote about that remedy here.
Look at what these have in common. Each has a claimant whose loss is small next to the cost of proving it, up against a defendant for whom the same lawsuit is a rounding error. The fee provision isn’t a bonus. It’s the only reason the claim exists.
The two-way shifts: fees run to whoever wins, and that changes everything
A two-way fee provision doesn’t make claims possible. It makes them expensive to bring badly.
Trade secrets. Minn. Stat. § 325C.04:
If (i) a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith, (ii) a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith, or (iii) willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.
Read clause (i) from the defendant’s chair. A former employer that sues a departing employee on a thin misappropriation theory isn’t just risking a loss — it’s exposed on fees. That’s a real deterrent, and it’s why a trade secret demand letter and a trade secret complaint are different documents. See our trade secrets guide.
Deceptive trade practices. Minn. Stat. § 325D.45, subd. 2 gives costs to the prevailing party “unless the court otherwise directs,” but allows attorney fees only in two narrow situations: where the complaining party “has brought an action knowing it to be groundless,” or where the party charged “has willfully engaged in the trade practice knowing it to be deceptive.” Both ends turn on what somebody knew. So the statute rarely shifts fees at all — which is one reason the Deceptive Trade Practices Act works mostly as an injunction statute, as we discussed here.
The mandatory shift nobody sees coming: construction prompt payment
Minn. Stat. § 337.10, subd. 3 is the most aggressive fee provision in this survey, and it sits in a statute most people only read for the clauses it voids:
A party requesting payment who prevails in a civil action to collect interest penalties from a party responsible for payment must be awarded its costs and disbursements, including attorney fees incurred in bringing the action.
“Must be awarded.” Pair that with 1-1/2 percent per month on undisputed amounts and a statutory right to suspend work, and you get something unusual: a small claim — unpaid interest penalties, not the underlying invoice — that’s worth filing on its own. We covered the whole statute here.
The general-purpose shift, and the gate in front of it
Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 3a is Minnesota’s broadest fee provision: any person injured by a violation of the laws listed in subd. 1 “may bring a civil action and recover damages, together with costs and disbursements, including costs of investigation and reasonable attorney’s fees.”
But there’s a gate. In Ly v. Nystrom, 615 N.W.2d 302 (Minn. 2000), the Minnesota Supreme Court held the remedy available only to claimants who show that their cause of action benefits the public, reasoning from the Attorney General’s own authority: “If the attorney general is not authorized to commence a proceeding because it would not result in a public benefit … then a claimant under the Private AG Statute is similarly constrained.”
And the list in subd. 1 is shorter than people think. It names the Unlawful Trade Practices Act at §§ 325D.09 to 325D.16. It does not name the Deceptive Trade Practices Act at §§ 325D.43 to 325D.48. Full treatment here.
And then there’s the fee Minnesota capped on purpose
Minn. Stat. § 504B.291, subd. 1(a) lets a tenant in a nonpayment eviction redeem the tenancy by paying the arrears “with interest, costs of the action, and an attorney’s fee not to exceed $5.”
Five dollars. In a case where the landlord hired a lawyer, filed, served, and showed up.
Nobody forgot to update that number. It’s a choice, and it points the opposite way from everything else on this page: Minnesota didn’t want the lawyer’s bill to be what keeps a tenant from curing. The other statutes shift fees to make a claim possible. This one caps fees to keep a cure affordable. See our eviction timeline.
The map
| Claim | Direction | Discretionary? | Practical effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wage payment § 181.171, subd. 3 | To the employee | Mandatory (“shall”) | Makes four-figure wage claims economically real |
| Minimum wage / overtime § 177.27, subd. 10 | To the employee | Mandatory | Same |
| Construction prompt payment § 337.10, subd. 3 | To the party requesting payment | Mandatory (“must be awarded”) | Makes an interest-penalty claim worth filing alone |
| Consumer Fraud Act § 325F.70, subd. 3 | To the consumer | Available by statute | Damages plus costs of investigation, public benefit deemed |
| Non-compete § 181.988, subds. 2(d), 3(c) | To the employee only | Discretionary (“may”) | Employer wins get nothing |
| Books and records § 302A.461, subd. 4(e) | To the shareholder | Discretionary | Deters stonewalling a first-tier demand |
| Private attorney general § 8.31, subd. 3a | To the injured person | Available, but public-benefit gated | Broad reach, narrow gate |
| Trade secrets § 325C.04 | Either party | Discretionary, scienter-gated | Deters weak claims as well as bad conduct |
| Deceptive trade practices § 325D.45, subd. 2 | Either party | Discretionary, scienter-gated both ways | Rarely shifts; costs still follow the prevailing party |
| Eviction redemption § 504B.291, subd. 1(a) | To the landlord | Capped at $5 | Keeps the cure cheap on purpose |
What this means when you’re deciding whether to bring a claim
- Find the fee provision before you put a value on the case. A $9,000 claim with a mandatory one-way fee shift and a $9,000 claim without one are different assets, and they settle at very different numbers.
- Read which way it runs. One-way to the claimant means the defendant’s downside is lopsided — that’s leverage. Two-way means your own downside is real, and a thin theory now has a price tag.
- Stack where you legitimately can. Independent fee-shifting statutes that reach the same conduct add up, and stacking is what changes how a defendant looks at the case. A fraudulent account, for instance, can implicate the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s own fee provisions at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n and 1681o alongside state-law theories — see our identity theft guide.
- Check whether “shall” or “may” shows up. It’s the difference between a sure thing you can price and an argument you have to win twice.
- Don’t assume a fee provision follows the statute you’re suing under. Section 8.31, subd. 1’s list is specific, and if a statute isn’t on it, that’s the end of it under that section.
- Watch the clock separately. Fee provisions don’t extend limitations periods — see our Minnesota limitations overview.
If you’re the one defending
- Figure out the exposure on day one. In a mandatory-fee case, the fee award frequently exceeds the damages, and it grows every month the case stays open. That should drive your early settlement thinking, not the merits alone.
- Look for a two-way provision. If the statute cuts both ways, a groundless claim is a counter-lever, and saying so early is cheaper than proving it late.
- Tender what you genuinely owe. Several Minnesota statutes reward it outright — Minn. Stat. § 181.14, subd. 3 caps exposure at a good-faith legal tender — the single most under-used defensive provision in the employment chapter.
What the map actually tells you
We like to tell ourselves the law puts the most serious wrongs first. Look at the map. It plainly doesn’t.
A construction subcontractor chasing an interest penalty gets a mandatory fee award. A shareholder frozen out of the company’s own books gets a discretionary one. A consumer defrauded in a household purchase gets damages, investigation costs, and fees, with the public-benefit question answered by statute. And a business defrauded in the purchase of that same business gets Ly v. Nystrom and the American rule.
The variable isn’t how bad the conduct was. It’s who had the bargaining power when the claim came up. Every one of these provisions exists because the Legislature decided a particular kind of claimant would otherwise have no realistic way to hire a lawyer — and, in the eviction statute, that a particular kind of defendant couldn’t cure if the lawyer’s bill came along with it.
You can defend building a code that way. But it means the real question in Minnesota is rarely was I wronged. It’s which chapter is my wrong in — because that, more than the facts, decides whether anyone will take the case.
Madgett Law, LLC looks at Minnesota claims and defenses with the fee-shifting statutes front and center, on both sides — for claimants deciding whether a case can be brought, and for businesses sizing up exposure that grows every month a mandatory-fee case stays open. Send us a message or call 612-470-6529.
Sources: Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 1 (laws the attorney general is directed to investigate, naming the Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act at §§ 325F.68 to 325F.70 and the Unlawful Trade Practices Act at §§ 325D.09 to 325D.16) and subd. 3a (private remedies; damages, costs and disbursements, costs of investigation, and reasonable attorney’s fees); Minn. Stat. § 325F.70, subd. 3(a) (consumer action for damages, costs of investigation, and reasonable attorney fees, and the declaration that the action benefits the public); Minn. Stat. § 325D.45, subd. 2 (costs to the prevailing party; attorney fees only for a groundless action or a willful, knowing deceptive practice); Minn. Stat. § 325C.04 (attorney’s fees to the prevailing party on bad-faith claim, bad-faith injunction motion, or willful and malicious misappropriation); Minn. Stat. § 181.171, subds. 1 and 3 (private civil actions and mandatory costs, disbursements, witness fees, and attorney fees); Minn. Stat. § 177.27, subds. 8 and 10 (private actions and mandatory fees); Minn. Stat. § 181.988, subds. 2(d) and 3(c) (discretionary attorney fees to the employee); Minn. Stat. § 181.14, subd. 3 (good-faith legal tender); Minn. Stat. § 302A.461, subd. 4(e) (specific enforcement and expenses including attorney fees and disbursements); Minn. Stat. § 337.10, subd. 3 (prompt payment; mandatory costs and disbursements including attorney fees to a prevailing claimant); Minn. Stat. § 504B.291, subd. 1(a) (redemption on payment of arrears with interest, costs, and an attorney’s fee not to exceed $5) (Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes); 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n, 1681o; Ly v. Nystrom, 615 N.W.2d 302 (Minn. 2000) (public benefit requirement under Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 3a) (Caselaw Access Project archive of North Western Reporter, Second Series, volume 615, at pages 302–316). This survey is not exhaustive; Minnesota contains fee provisions beyond those discussed here, and contractual fee provisions operate independently. This article is general legal information about Minnesota law, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney–client relationship. No outcome is promised or implied.