Training_Presentation_on_Vacating_Eviction_Judgments__January_2015.pptx

Training on eviction judgments that was posted to the mn court system online.

1. Motions to vacate and re-open Rule 60.02 and eviction judgments

2. Issues and topics in this presentation An introduction to Rule 60 Proper circumstances for a Rule 60.02 motion in an eviction action Legal standards for relief from a judgment Void judgments Finden analysis in cases of mistake or excusable neglect Residual catch-all provision Procedure for requesting relief from a judgment Factors affecting the outcome of a Rule 60.02 motion Aftermath of a Rule 60.02 proceeding Miscellaneous considerations

3. An introduction to rule 60 Rule 60 of the Rules of Civil Procedure Generally covers requests for relief from the effect of a judgment or order Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.01 Provides for the correction of “clerical mistakes” in the record and errors therein “arising from oversight or omission”

4. AN INTRODUCTION TO RULE 60 Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 Provides relief from a final judgment or order in six sets of circumstances, including the following: 60.02(a) – “Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” 60.02(d) – “The judgment is void” 60.02(f) – “Any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment” Motion must be brought within a reasonable time and within one year if brought under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(a)-(c) Motion does not affect finality of a judgment or suspend its operation

5. How does a rule 60.02 motion present itself? “Motion to Quash a Writ” General circumstances present in most Rule 60.02 motions: Court has entered judgment Court has issued writ of recovery of the premises No factual or legal issue in the record for district court or appellate review, i.e. , no error in entry of judgment and/or issuance of writ of recovery NOTE: If there is a legal error that led to the judgment, then a defendant should appeal or seek a district court judge review. Some claim of error or relinquishment of rights by the plaintiff before or after securing judgment in the eviction action

6. Proper circumstances for a rule 60.02 motion IN an eviction action Default judgments Defective service of process and lack of personal jurisdiction Mistake or excusable neglect in failure to attend hearing Judgments obtained for non-compliance with deadline in a court order or settlement agreement Compliance Substantial compliance Example: Landlord accepts $800 settlement payment made two hours after a noon payment deadline in a settlement agreement. Post-judgment conduct inconsistent with enforcement of an otherwise valid judgment Example: Landlord accepts December 2014 rent after securing judgment and a writ of recovery in late November 2014.

7. LEGAL STANDARD For VOID JUDGMENTS – MANDATORY RELIEF Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(d) and void judgments, generally Personal jurisdiction Neither diligence nor a reasonable defense on the merits is required – Pugsley v. Magerfleisch , 161 Minn. 246, 201 N.W. 323 (1924) No question of discretion in a Rule 60.02(d) motion – Hengel v. Hyatt , 312 Minn. 317, 252 N.W.2d 105 (1977) Subject matter jurisdiction Fundamental due process consideration

8. Legal standard for void judgments – mandatory relief Void judgments in eviction actions If an eviction defendant can prove improper service and lack of personal jurisdiction, a default judgment is void. If an eviction defendant can prove the creation of a new tenancy for premises subject to an eviction judgment , after a writ of recovery has issued, the judgment is void . Thompson v. Baxter , 107 Minn. 122, 119 N.W. 797 (1909) In such cases, the court must vacate the judgment unconditionally. There is no additional analysis of the merits of any defense. The only rule-based restriction is that the moving party must bring the motion within a reasonable time. Note: Rule 60.02(d) motions are not subject to the one-year rule.

9. Legal standard FOR MISTAKE OR EXCUSABLE NEGLECT – FINDEN FACTORS Finden v. Klaas , 268 Minn. 268, 128 N.W.2d 748 (1964) See also Johnson v. Nelson , 265 Minn. 71, 120 N.W.2d 333 (1963 ) Four-factor test from Finden : Reasonable defense on the merits Reasonable excuse for default or failure to act Due diligence and promptness in seeking relief No substantial prejudice to the opposing party

10. Legal standard FOR MISTAKE OR EXCUSABLE NEGLECT – FINDEN FACTORS Balancing of Finden factors A strong showing on three of the four factors may offset a weak showing on one of the factors – Armstrong v. Heckman , 409 N.W.2d 27 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987) A strong showing on only two of the four factors cannot offset a weak showing on the other two factors – Imperial Premium Finance, Inc. v. GK Cab. Co., Inc. , 603 N.W.2d 853 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000) Security for relief Court “empowered” under the rule to require the defendant “to deposit security” for any judgment the plaintiff may obtain – Finden , 128 N.W.2d at 751 Finden creep Merit analysis Security requirement

11. LEGAL STANDARD FOR CATCH-ALL PROVISION FOR RULE 60.02 RELIEF Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(f) Residual, catch-all clause Broad discretion, fact-specific Relief may be granted from a final judgment or order for reason other than those specifically enumerated in Rule 60.02, provided that the reason justifies relief and the motion is made within a reasonable time. Newman v. Fjelstad , 271 Minn. 514, 137 N.W.2d 181 (1963 ) – no relief from order approving settlement of claims seven years before discovery of personal injury, when motion was brought 18 years after the settlement and 11 years after discovery of the injury Parties can obtain relief under the residual clause of Rule 60.02 in “exceptional circumstances,” only where the reason for vacating the judgment does not fall under some other part of such rule. Kern v. Janson , 800 N.W.2d 126 (2011) – relief from otherwise preclusive effect of Conciliation Court judgment for auto accident damages, obtained before discovery of personal injury in case

12. PROCEDURE for rule 60.02 motion Motion for Relief under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 Form available – see additional presentation materials and http:// povertylaw.homestead.com/ResidentialUnlawfulDetainer.html General procedure: Complete Motion form, using optional paragraphs as relevant . Reference and attach exhibits. Submit with Affidavit for Proceeding In Forma Pauperis . http:// povertylaw.homestead.com/IFP.html E-filing is mandatory for attorneys. In Hennepin County, a referee reviews the Motion in chambers and issues an Order granting or denying a hearing. If a hearing is set, the referee will likely set a deadline for service of the Order and Motion

13. PROCEDURE FOR RULE 60.02 motion Issues to review in Rule 60.02 scheduling order Stay of enforcement of judgment and/or writ of recovery Conditions of stay or security pending hearing on motion There should be no conditions for a stay in a motion based on void judgment theory. Requirements for service of order and motion

14. PROCEDURE for rule 60.02 motion Best Practices for Motion Under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 Proceed by verified Motion . Give notice to the plaintiff, even if by telephone, before filing the motion. Always plead specific facts to address all four of the Finden factors. Cite to statute, rule, or case that is authoritative or persuasive on any claimed jurisdictional defect or defense on the merits. Include payment records, lease documents, inspection reports, property information records, and any other documentary evidence relevant to the issues in the motion.

15. Factors affecting the outcome of a RULE 60.02 motion Primary factors favoring relief from eviction judgments A provable jurisdictional defect in the eviction case Provable conduct by the plaintiff inconsistent with enforcing the judgment Provable excuse by the defendant justifying non-attendance Promptness of action after notice of judgment Examples of claims potentially supporting relief from judgment Improper service of the Summons and Complaint Filing of the action by the wrong plaintiff Waiver of possession claim by post-judgment acceptance of rent Oral modification of court-approved settlement agreement Mootness of case (tenant moved out before action commenced)

16. FACTORS AFFECTING THE OUTCOME OF A RULE 60.02 MOTION Primary factor weighing against relief from an eviction judgment Lack of provable jurisdictional defect or defense on the merits Additional factors weighing against relief from an eviction judgment: Public policy favoring the finality of judgments Failure of the defendant to act quickly In an eviction action, this means days or weeks, not months or years Procedural history Judgment against tenant for failure to meet court deadline Violation of settlement agreement by tenant

17. RULE 60.02 relief Court may take a number of different actions Possible relief under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02: Vacating of judgment Undoing effects of judgment Re-opening of record for hearing on merits Dismissal of case in which court lacks jurisdiction Conditioning of a future hearing on payment of security Reinstatement of a prior settlement agreement between the parties Additional reading on Rule 60.02 motions and unreported cases: http://povertylaw.homestead.com/files/Reading/Residential_Eviction_Defense_in_Minnesota.htm#TOC1_247

18. Miscellaneous issues and considerations Finality of judgment v. preference for hearing on the merits Should a tenant seek to vacate judgment before or as part of a request for expungement ? Requesting immediate dismissal and expungement in cases in which tenant prevails on claim of defect in service of process Defect that leads to relief for tenant in case of improper service is a solid basis to argue for dismissal and expungement New statute: Minn. Stat. § 504B.345 Option to seek judge review if Motion is denied Good option if issue for review regards interpretation and/or application of the law, as opposed to the court’s exercise of discretion

19. CONTACT INFORMATION Drew P. Schaffer, Managing Attorney Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid 430 First Avenue North, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55401-1780 Electronic Mail: [email protected] Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 612.746.3644 Legal Aid Intake: 612.334.5970