Taking a Default Judgment in Minnesota: What Rule 55 Actually Requires

Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 55.01 reads like an order. When a defendant has failed to plead or otherwise defend, “judgment by default shall be entered against that party.” Read that sentence, stop there, and you’ll tend to assume the rest is paperwork.

It isn’t. Three things about Minnesota default practice keep surprising lawyers who learned Rule 55 in federal court or out of a form file. I’ve watched each one catch good counsel:

1. The court administrator’s power to enter judgment is far narrower here than in federal court. Minnesota deliberately didn’t adopt the federal “sum certain” language, and the Minnesota Supreme Court said so in 1973.
2. “Shall be entered” isn’t self-executing. A defendant who shows up late — even after the motion is served — can defeat the motion outright on the same four-factor showing used to vacate a judgment. That’s been the law since at least 1980.
3. A federal statute imposes an affidavit requirement that appears nowhere in Rule 55, applies to every case in which the defendant hasn’t appeared, and carries a criminal penalty for getting it wrong.

This piece is about the mechanics of taking a default judgment in Minnesota district court. The reverse problem — getting one set aside — runs through Rule 60.02 and the Finden factors, and it has its own article: vacating a Minnesota default judgment. Conciliation court has its own default procedure, covered in the conciliation court guide.

When is a defendant actually in default?

A defendant is in default when the time to respond has run and nothing responsive is pending. Rule 12.01 sets the clock:

Defendant shall serve an answer within 21 days after service of the summons upon that defendant unless the court directs otherwise pursuant to Rule 4.043.

Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.01. The Minnesota Supreme Court boiled the test down in Thayer v. American Financial Advisers, Inc.: “Thus a party is technically in default if no defensive motion is pending and if the time for responsive pleading has expired.” 322 N.W.2d 599, 601 (Minn. 1982).

Both halves matter. A Rule 12.02 motion to dismiss, served instead of an answer, stops the clock — that defendant isn’t in default even though there’s no answer. And a defendant who serves an answer one day late but before you move isn’t in default when you move, because the answer’s been served.

Two more things trip people up:

Minnesota has no separate “entry of default.” Federal practice has two steps: the clerk enters a default under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), and a default judgment follows under Rule 55(b). Minnesota rolls them into one. There’s no Minnesota version of a clerk’s entry of default; you go straight to judgment. If your form file was built on federal practice, take the entry-of-default step out.

The affidavit of default is a rule requirement in both tracks. Rule 55.01 conditions default judgment on the fact of the failure to plead being “made to appear by affidavit”. That isn’t the same document as the affidavit of amounts due, and it isn’t optional in either the administrator track or the court track.

Which track: court administrator or judge?

I see this one answered wrong more often than any other, because the reflex is to grab the federal standard.

Rule 55.01(a) governs the administrator track:

When the plaintiff’s claim against a defendant is upon a contract for the payment of money only, or for the payment of taxes and penalties and interest thereon owing to the state, the court administrator, upon request of the plaintiff and upon affidavit of the amount due, which may not exceed the amount demanded in the complaint or in a written notice served on the defendant in accordance with Rule 4 if the complaint seeks an unspecified amount pursuant to Rule 8.01, shall enter judgment for the amount due and costs against the defendant.

Everything else is Rule 55.01(b): “In all other cases, the party entitled to a judgment by default shall apply to the court therefor.”

“Upon a contract for the payment of money only” is a much smaller box than “sum certain.” The Minnesota Supreme Court took on the difference head-on in Lyon Development Corp. v. Ricke’s, Inc., 296 Minn. 75, 207 N.W.2d 273 (1973), where a plaintiff had gotten a clerk-entered default judgment against a garnishee. The court held the clerk had no such power:

The language of that rule limits the right of the clerk to enter judgment to cases in which the plaintiff’s claim is upon a contract for the payment of money only, or for the payment of taxes to the state.

296 Minn. at 81. Then it explained why the federal comparison doesn’t work:

Plaintiff relies on the language of Rule 55, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, from which our rule was derived. However, there is a substantial difference in the Federal rule. The Federal rule provides that the clerk may enter a judgment whenever the claim is “for a sum certain or for a sum which can by computation be made certain.” This is an entirely different situation, and since we have not adopted the language of the Federal rules, the act of the clerk in entering judgment in this case was outside the scope of our rule.

Id. at 81. That comparison still holds today: Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1) still ties the clerk’s authority to a claim “for a sum certain or a sum that can be made certain by computation”.

Here’s what that means in practice. A liquidated claim where the arithmetic is obvious, but that doesn’t arise from a contract for the payment of money — a statutory penalty, a conversion claim for a specific sum, a garnishee’s default, a judgment on an account stated pleaded in tort — is a Rule 55.01(b) case. Hand it to the administrator and you get a judgment that’s open to attack as procedurally defective. That’s exactly what happened in Lyon Development.

Minnesota Rule 55 compared to Federal Rule 55

What counts as an “appearance” that triggers the 14-day notice?

Rule 55.01(b) requires notice to a defendant who has “appeared”:

If a party against whom judgment is sought has appeared in the action, that party shall be served with written notice of the application for judgment at least 14 days prior to the hearing on such application.

The definition is in a different rule altogether, and it’s broad. Rule 5.01 provides: “A party appears when that party serves or files any document in the proceeding.”

Read it slowly. It’s serves or files — not “files.” A defendant who served an answer on you and never filed it has appeared. So has one who served a demand for a more definite statement, a notice of appearance by counsel, a motion for an extension, or a discovery request. The document doesn’t have to respond to the complaint, and it doesn’t have to reach the court file.

Rule 5.01 also gives you the flip side, which is why the line matters: “No service need be made on parties in default for failure to appear except that pleadings asserting new or additional claims for relief against them shall be served upon them in the manner provided for service of summons in Rule 4.”

Lyon Development drew the line the same way: “Rule 55.01(2) provides for service of notice upon a party who has previously appeared in the action but is now in default. This does not deal with the question of parties who have never appeared in the action.” 296 Minn. at 82. (The rule’s subdivisions were relettered after 1973; former 55.01(2) is today’s 55.01(b), and the notice period has since grown from three days to fourteen.)

The 2019 amendment that produced the current 14-day period was on purpose. The advisory committee explained that “the 3-day notice period has proven too short to allow a meaningful response from the party receiving notice.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 55, Advisory Committee Comment — 2019 Amendments.

Here’s where it bites. A defendant who served or filed any document, even a pro se paper that isn’t an answer, has appeared. Treat that defendant as a non-appearing party, take judgment without the 14-day notice, and you’ve handed the other side a clean procedural attack that doesn’t depend on the merits. An informal letter is a different matter. The court of appeals has held that the defendants’ lawyer’s letter asking the plaintiff’s lawyer for an extension wasn’t an appearance, because no paper had been served or filed. Howard v. Frondell, 387 N.W.2d 205, 208–09 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).

What has to be in the moving papers?

For a Rule 55.01(b) default, the requirements come from the General Rules of Practice, not Rule 55. Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 117.02 provides:

A party entitled to judgment by default shall move the court for judgment in that party’s favor, setting forth by affidavit the facts which entitle that party to relief. Either the party or the party’s lawyer may make the affidavit, which may include reliable hearsay. This affidavit is not required in cases governed by Minn. R. Civ. P. 55.01(a).

That passage packs in three useful things. The affidavit has to establish the facts entitling the movant to relief — not just the fact of default. The lawyer may swear it. And it “may include reliable hearsay”, which is unusual and handy; the ordinary evidentiary objection to a business record proved through counsel doesn’t apply.

Scheduling has its own rule too. Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 117.01: “Default hearings are scheduled as motions, and a date and time for default hearings shall be obtained from the court administrator or a designated motion assignment deputy. None of the provisions of Rule 115 apply to default hearings.” That last sentence saves you real work — the Rule 115 motion-practice requirements (timing, memoranda, word limits) don’t govern here.

Affidavits in Minnesota state court don’t have to be notarized. Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 15 recognizes as an “affidavit” a document “signed under penalty of perjury pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 358.116,” with the declaration language, date, and county and state of signing. The statute itself goes further than the rule: § 358.116 provides that unless a court rule specifically requires it, a document filed with a Minnesota court “is not required to be notarized”, and that a person who signs knowing the document is false in a material respect “is guilty of perjury under section 609.48”.

Rule 55.01(c) governs the proof-of-damages side when the relief isn’t simply money: if “the taking of an account, or the proof of any fact, is necessary to enable the court to give judgment,” the court may take or hear that proof or order a reference. For a money claim under 55.01(b), the rule directs that “the court shall ascertain, by a reference or otherwise, the amount to which the plaintiff is entitled”. The default doesn’t admit your damages. You prove them.

The ceiling: Rule 54.03

Rule 55.02 spells it out — the rule applies to plaintiffs, third-party plaintiffs, cross-claimants, and counterclaimants alike, and “[i]n all cases, a judgment by default is subject to the limitations of Rule 54.03.”

Rule 54.03 is one sentence:

A judgment by default shall not be different in kind from or exceed in amount that prayed for in the demand for judgment.

There are two traps in it.

The kind-of-relief trap. If the complaint demands money and you ask the court on default for an injunction, rescission, or a declaration, Rule 54.03 blocks it. A defendant reads the complaint and decides whether to defend based on what it demands. The rule holds you to that demand.

The unspecified-amount trap. Minnesota limits ad damnum pleading. Under Rule 8.01, “[i]f a recovery of money for unliquidated damages in an amount greater than $50,000 is demanded, the pleading shall state merely that recovery of reasonable damages in an amount greater than $50,000 is sought.” Minn. Stat. § 544.36 says the same thing. So a personal injury complaint literally can’t plead a number above $50,000.

For the administrator track, Rule 55.01(a) gives you the fix: the affidavit of amount due “may not exceed the amount demanded in the complaint or in a written notice served on the defendant in accordance with Rule 4 if the complaint seeks an unspecified amount pursuant to Rule 8.01”. That written Rule 4 notice is how a number gets in front of the defendant when the complaint can’t put one there. If you plan to take a large default on an unspecified-amount pleading, serve that notice, and serve it the way Rule 4 requires — not by mail to counsel. Service of process under Rule 4 is its own subject, and its requirements are unforgiving.

The affidavit Rule 55 never mentions: the SCRA

Nothing in Minnesota Rule 55 says a word about military service. A federal statute does, and it governs.

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. § 3931, isn’t limited to federal court. Subsection (a) says how far it reaches: “This section applies to any civil action or proceeding, including any child custody proceeding, in which the defendant does not make an appearance.”

Then subsection (b)(1) imposes the affidavit requirement — and look at who it binds:

In any action or proceeding covered by this section, the court, before entering judgment for the plaintiff, shall require the plaintiff to file with the court an affidavit — (A) stating whether or not the defendant is in military service and showing necessary facts to support the affidavit; or (B) if the plaintiff is unable to determine whether or not the defendant is in military service, stating that the plaintiff is unable to determine whether or not the defendant is in military service.

Here’s what follows from it.

If the defendant is in military service, judgment is off the table until counsel is appointed. § 3931(b)(2): “If in an action covered by this section it appears that the defendant is in military service, the court may not enter a judgment until after the court appoints an attorney to represent the defendant.” The same paragraph adds that if appointed counsel can’t locate the servicemember, counsel’s actions “shall not waive any defense of the servicemember or otherwise bind the servicemember.”

If status can’t be determined, the court may require a bond. § 3931(b)(3) permits the court to require a bond indemnifying the defendant against loss if the judgment is later set aside, and the bond “shall remain in effect until expiration of the time for appeal and setting aside of a judgment under applicable Federal or State law or regulation or under any applicable ordinance of a political subdivision of a State.”

A false affidavit is a crime. § 3931(c): “A person who makes or uses an affidavit permitted under subsection (b) … knowing it to be false, shall be fined as provided in title 18, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.” The affidavit may be signed under penalty of perjury rather than notarized — § 3931(b)(4) permits “a statement, declaration, verification, or certificate, in writing, subscribed and certified or declared to be true under penalty of perjury” — which lines up neatly with Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 15.

There’s also a reopening right that works independently of Rule 60.02. Under § 3931(g)(1), a default judgment entered against a servicemember during military service, or within 60 days after release, must be reopened on application if the servicemember was materially affected in making a defense and has a meritorious or legal defense. The application “must be filed not later than 90 days after the date of the termination of or release from military service.” § 3931(g)(2). A bona fide purchaser for value under the judgment is protected. § 3931(h).

I do it the same way every time: run the Defense Manpower Data Center check, attach the result, and swear to it. It costs nothing, and it shuts the door on a federal attack on the judgment years later.

Minors and incompetent defendants

Federal Rule 55(b)(2) bars a default judgment against a minor or incompetent person unless a guardian, conservator, or similar fiduciary has appeared. Minnesota Rule 55 has nothing like it. If you’re coming from federal practice, you’ll go looking for it and come up empty.

The protection lives in Rule 17.02 instead. A party who is an infant or incompetent and has no duly appointed representative “shall be represented by a guardian ad litem appointed by the court”. And Rule 17.02(b) speaks straight to the default situation:

If no such appointment is made on behalf of a defendant party before answer or default, the adverse party or a party’s attorney may apply for such appointment, and in such case the court shall allow the guardian ad litem a reasonable time to respond to the complaint.

So the obligation is on the movant. If you know the defendant is a minor or an incapacitated adult, the path is an application under Rule 17.02, followed by a reasonable period for the guardian ad litem to answer. It isn’t a default motion.

Published service and out-of-state service: the bond

Rule 55.01(d) sets a condition most lawyers never run into until somebody raises it against them:

When service of the summons has been made by published notice, or by delivery of a copy outside the state, default judgment must not be entered until the plaintiff, if required by the court, has filed a court-approved bond that conforms to a court order regarding the restitution of the property obtained from the judgment if a defense is later permitted and sustained. A bond is not required in actions involving the title to real estate or to foreclose mortgages or other liens.

The bond is discretionary — “if required by the court” — and the 2021 advisory committee comment explains why: a bond “may be of little value if the judgment creditor was of sufficient financial standing that requiring a bond would only impose additional expense in the case, and would offer no additional security to the defaulting defendant.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 55, Advisory Committee Comment — 2021 Amendments. In any case built on service by publication, I expect the question. So should you.

One more small subdivision that’s easy to miss. Rule 55.01(e): when default judgment is entered on “a promissory note, draft or bill of exchange”, the instrument itself “shall be filed with the court administrator and made a part of the files of the action.”

Consumer debt bought from someone else: § 548.101

If the claim is an assigned consumer debt, Rule 55 is just the start. Minn. Stat. § 548.101 imposes a separate, and much heavier, set of requirements on “[a] party entitled to a judgment by default in a conciliation court or district court action upon an assigned obligation arising out of any consumer debt that is primarily for personal, family, or household purposes and in default at the time of assignment”.

Look at the opening command: such a party “shall apply to the court.” The administrator track is off the table, whether or not the claim is on a contract for the payment of money.

Paragraph (a) requires seven submissions with the request for judgment: the written contract with the original creditor (or other admissible evidence of the account terms); admissible evidence that the defendant owes the debt; the last four digits of the debtor’s Social Security number if known; admissible evidence that the amount claimed is accurate, including the charge-off or first-assignment balance and a breakdown of any fees, interest, and charges added; admissible evidence of a valid and complete chain of assignment “including documentation or a bill of sale evidencing the assignment with evidence that the particular debt at issue was included in the assignment”; proof of proper service and no timely answer; and proof that a notice of intent to apply for default judgment was mailed.

That last item comes with its own timing and its own form. The notice “must be mailed to the debtor at the debtor’s last known address at least 14 days before the request, application, or motion for default,” and the statute prints the required form, which tells the debtor in plain terms that a lawsuit may exist without having been filed and that judgment will follow “unless you mail a written Answer or written response contesting the debt within 14 days from the date below.” § 548.101(a)(7).

Paragraph (b) gives a little relief: one document may satisfy more than one of clauses (1) through (5), and “[a] court may permit the foundation for documents submitted under paragraph (a) to be established by an affidavit.” Paragraph (c) lets the court either hold a hearing or, outside conciliation court and where no hearing is required by rule, “enter an administrative default judgment without a hearing if the court determines that the evidence submitted satisfies the requirements of paragraph (a).”

When I defend one of these judgments, § 548.101 is the checklist I run against the file. A missing link in the chain of assignment, or a missing 14-day notice, is a defect in the judgment itself. For more, see our piece on debt collection practices in Minnesota.

The case has to be filed — and one year is the whole window

You can’t take a default in a case that doesn’t exist in the court file, and in Minnesota a served-but-unfiled case has a shelf life. Rule 5.04(a):

Any action that is not filed with the court within one year of commencement against any party is deemed dismissed with prejudice against all parties unless the parties within that year sign a stipulation to extend the filing period.

The Minnesota Supreme Court confirmed in Gams v. Houghton, 884 N.W.2d 611 (Minn. 2016), that this operates on its own: “the defendant does not need to take any action for Rule 5.04(a) to operate”, and a case is automatically deemed “dismissed with prejudice upon failure to file, or obtain a stipulation, within the 1-year deadline in the rule.” Id. at 617. The court also held that Rule 60.02 remains available as relief from such a dismissal. Id. at 618.

Minnesota is a service-commences-the-action state, so it’s perfectly ordinary for a defaulting defendant’s case to sit unfiled while plaintiff’s counsel waits. The one-year clock runs from commencement — that is, from service — not from the date of default. I put it on the calendar the day I serve.

The part that surprises plaintiffs: the court can just say no

Go back to the word “shall.” Rule 55.01 says judgment “shall be entered”. Minnesota courts haven’t read it as a ministerial command in the 55.01(b) track.

Coller v. Guardian Angels Roman Catholic Church of Chaska, 294 N.W.2d 712 (Minn. 1980), puts the rule in one sentence that cuts both ways:

Relief from a default judgment or denial of a motion for a default judgment is proper when four requirements are met: defendant has a reasonable defense on the merits; defendant has a reasonable excuse for his failure to answer; defendant acted with due diligence after notice of the entry of judgment; and no substantial prejudice will result to other parties.

Id. at 715. Thayer applied it prospectively two years later, restating the third factor as diligence “after notice of the [motion for default judgment]” — the bracketed alteration is the Supreme Court’s own. 322 N.W.2d at 601.

The defendant’s counter-move is Rule 6.02, which allows the court, on motion after the period has expired, to permit a late act “where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect”. That’s exactly what happened in Coller: the defendants’ answer had been prepared but never served through counsel’s inadvertence; when the plaintiff moved for default, defense counsel served the answer and moved to enlarge the time; the district court denied the default and granted the extension; and the Supreme Court affirmed, holding the court “acted well within its discretion”. 294 N.W.2d at 715.

Coller also named the factor that most often decides these motions: whose neglect it was. “Minnesota courts have consistently held that default caused by a party’s attorney rather than by the party himself should be excused.” Id. at 715. Thayer is the mirror image. The corporate and individual defendants there ignored the summons for nearly two years, they were held to have committed inexcusable neglect, and the Supreme Court ordered default judgment entered against them. 322 N.W.2d at 602.

So when I bring the motion, I assume the defendant may appear, and I build the record on the two factors the movant controls — the absence of a reasonable excuse (document every contact, every extension granted, every notice sent) and prejudice to the client (lost witnesses, faded memories, accrued interest, expired evidence). A motion that rests on the bare fact of default is a motion waiting to be denied.

Sequence for a Rule 55.01(b) default

Here’s the order I work in for a money case against a non-appearing defendant:

1. Confirm the answer period under Rule 12.01 has run and no motion is pending.
2. Confirm the case is filed and the Rule 5.04(a) one-year clock has not expired.
3. If the complaint pleaded an unspecified amount over $50,000, serve the written Rule 4 notice of the amount sought.
4. Run and document the military-service search; prepare the § 3931(b)(1) affidavit.
5. If the defendant has served or filed anything, calendar the 14-day Rule 55.01(b) notice.
6. Prepare the affidavit of default (Rule 55.01) and the Gen. R. Prac. 117.02 affidavit of the facts entitling you to relief, with damages proof.
7. If the claim is an assigned consumer debt, assemble the seven § 548.101(a) items and mail the statutory notice at least 14 days out.
8. Obtain a hearing date from the administrator under Gen. R. Prac. 117.01.
9. Confirm the relief requested does not exceed or differ in kind from the demand — Rule 54.03.
10. After judgment, docket it and begin collection. See collecting a Minnesota judgment.

Interest is its own question. The rules for interest on a judgment and for preverdict interest are set by statute, and they’re covered in prejudgment interest on Minnesota verdicts.

Madgett Law, LLC

Madgett Law, LLC handles civil litigation in Minnesota state and federal court, including motion practice, default judgments, judgment collection, and defending clients against judgments entered without proper notice. We regularly evaluate default judgments taken on assigned consumer debt against the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 548.101 and the notice requirements of Rule 55.01(b). If you’re pursuing a default, or you’ve found a judgment you didn’t know about, call 612-470-6529 or send us a message.

Sources: Minn. R. Civ. P. 55.01 (opening paragraph — affidavit of default and “shall be entered”; 55.01(a) — administrator entry on a contract for the payment of money only, taxes/penalties/interest owing to the state, affidavit of amount due, Rule 4 written-notice mechanism for Rule 8.01 unspecified-amount pleadings; 55.01(b) — application to the court in all other cases, 14-day written notice to a party who “has appeared”, court ascertainment of the amount; 55.01(c) — accounting/proof of fact and reference; 55.01(d) — bond after published or out-of-state service and the real-estate/mortgage exception; 55.01(e) — filing the promissory note, draft, or bill of exchange), and the Advisory Committee Comments to the 2019 amendments (reason for lengthening 3 days to 14) and 2021 amendments (rationale for discretionary bond); Minn. R. Civ. P. 55.02 (rule applies to third-party plaintiffs, cross-claimants, counterclaimants; default judgment subject to Rule 54.03); Minn. R. Civ. P. 54.03 (default judgment shall not differ in kind from or exceed the demand); Minn. R. Civ. P. 5.01 (definition of appearance — “serves or files any document”; no service on parties in default for failure to appear); Minn. R. Civ. P. 5.04(a) (one-year filing deadline, deemed dismissal with prejudice); Minn. R. Civ. P. 8.01 (unliquidated damages over $50,000 pleaded without a number); Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.01 (21-day answer period); Minn. R. Civ. P. 17.02(a) and (b) (guardian ad litem for infant or incompetent party; application before answer or default and reasonable time to respond); Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 117.01 (scheduling; Rule 115 inapplicable) and 117.02 (proof-of-claim affidavit, reliable hearsay, exemption for Rule 55.01(a) cases); Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 15 (definition of “affidavit”); Minn. Stat. § 358.116 (notarization not required; perjury under § 609.48); Minn. Stat. § 544.36 (ad damnum limitation); Minn. Stat. § 548.101(a)(1)–(7), (b), (c) (assigned consumer debt default judgments — application to the court, seven evidentiary submissions, 14-day notice of intent and its statutory form, foundation by affidavit, hearing or administrative entry); Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), 55(b)(1), 55(b)(2) (federal two-step structure, “sum certain,” 7-day notice, minor/incompetent limitation) for comparison only; 50 U.S.C. § 3931(a), (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), (c), (g)(1), (g)(2), (h) (Servicemembers Civil Relief Act — scope, affidavit requirement, appointment of counsel, bond, declaration under penalty of perjury, criminal penalty, reopening right and 90-day deadline, bona fide purchaser protection); Lyon Development Corp. v. Ricke’s, Inc., 296 Minn. 75, 81–82, 207 N.W.2d 273 (1973) (clerk’s authority limited to contract-for-money-only claims; Minnesota did not adopt the federal “sum certain” language; Rule 55.01 notice applies only to parties who have previously appeared); Coller v. Guardian Angels Roman Catholic Church of Chaska, 294 N.W.2d 712, 715 (Minn. 1980) (four requirements for denial of a motion for default judgment; Rule 6.02 enlargement; attorney neglect excused); Thayer v. American Financial Advisers, Inc., 322 N.W.2d 599, 601–02 (Minn. 1982) (test for technical default; Coller factors applied to a pending default motion; party’s own neglect inexcusable); Howard v. Frondell, 387 N.W.2d 205, 208–09 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) (defense counsel’s letter requesting an extension was not an appearance under Rule 5.01); Gams v. Houghton, 884 N.W.2d 611, 617–18 (Minn. 2016) (Rule 5.04(a) operates automatically; Rule 60.02 available).

This article is general legal information about Minnesota law. It is not legal advice, it does not create an attorney–client relationship, and it does not promise or imply any particular outcome. Court rules and statutes change; verify current text before relying on any provision discussed here.