Cited by

focused only on judicial error, which, as we have previously discussed, is not a proper argument in a rule 60.02 motion to vacate.

Co., ( (other citation omitted)).

-20 (Minn. 2016); (listing factors for relief under Minn. R. Civ.

rved that “Ms. Lewis does not argue her motion to vacate judgment under a specific subdivision of Rule 60.02, however, it appears to the Court that Ms. Lewis is arguing excusable neglect under Rule 60.02(a).” The district court concluded that Lewis’s motion failed as “she [could not] establish a reasonable defense on the merits or a debatably meritorious claim.” issue is forfeited on appeal.

In its order and memorandum, discussed in detail below, and concluded that Post failed to establish a reasonable excuse for his failure or neglect to act.

16 reasonable excuse for the movant’s failure or neglect to act; (3) the movant acted with due diligence after learning of the error or omission; and (4) no substantial prejudice will result to the other party if relief is granted.” -20 (Minn. 2016) (quotations omitted); (summarizing the factors to consider when deciding a rule 60.02 motion).

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Relief under rule 60.02(a) is appropriate when the movant “(a) is possessed of a reasonable defense on the merits, (b) has a reasonable excuse for his failure or neglect to answer, (c) has acted with due diligence after notice of the entry of judgment, and (d) (shows) that no substantial prejudice will result to the other party.” (the Finden factors).

Relief based on excusable neglect is appropriate when the mov ing party “(a) is possessed of a reasonable defense on the merits, (b) has a reasonable excuse for his failure or neglect to answer, (c) has acted with due diligence after notice of the entry of judgment, and (d) shows that no substantial prejudice will result to the other party.” (quotation omitted)

Church of Chaska, (providing that court should relieve defendant of judgment under Rule 60.02 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure when these four requirements are met).

the district court granted the motion.

Relief based on excusable neglect is appropriate when the movant “(a) is possessed of a reasonable defense on the merits, (b) has a reasonable excuse for his failure or neglect to answer, (c) has acted with due diligence after notice of the entry of judgment, and (d) shows that no substantial prejudice will result to the other party.” 7 (quotation omitted); see also Palladium Holdings, LLC v. Zuni Mortg.

See Finden v. Klaas , (establishing factors).

In analyzing husband’s motion, the district court applied the four Finden factors and determined that husband did not meet his burden to be relieved of judgment.4 (outlining four factors for court to consider when determining whether a defendant should be granted relief from judgment under rule 60.02).

(quotation omitted) (identifying the specific showings, known as the “Finden factors,” that a party must make when seeking to vacate a judgment under rule 60.02(a)); d 521, 528 (Minn. App. 2005) (applying the Finden factors to a rule 60.02 motion by a self-represen

To be entitled to relief under rule 60.02, the moving party “must establish (1) a reasonable case on the merits; (2) a reasonable excuse for the failure to act; (3) action with due diligence after entry of judgment; and (4) lack of prejudice to the opposing party.” ().

(explaining that the defendant must establish (1) a reasonable defense on the merits, (2) a reasonable excuse for failure to answer, (3) due diligence, and (4) absence of prejudice to the other party).

1 (explaining court should vacate default judgment when defaulting party has reasonable defense on the merits, has reasonable excuse for failing or neglecting to answer, has acted with due diligence upon notice of entry of judgment, and shows no substantial prejudice will result to other party).

1 Coller v. Guardian Angels Roman Cath.

In January 2019, the district court issued an order denying Sea -Legs’ motion (the January 2019 order).2 The district court reasoned that Sea -Legs had not satisfied the factors for relief under rule 60.02 .

7 These are the same four requirements—called the Finden factors—that a party must establish to obtain relief from a default judgment for “[m]istake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02(a).5 Northland, d at 402 (); see Coller, d at 715.

When determining whether to reopen a judgment based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect

(requiring each of four factors to be met to vacate a dismissal under rule 60.02).

“[O]rdinarily, courts are loath to punish the innocent client for the counsel’s neglect.”

P. 60 .02 (c); or (3) circumstances that satisfied the four factors for relief from judgments set out in Finden v. Klaas , (listing (1) a rea sonable defense on the merits, (2) a reasonable excuse for failure or neglect to answer, (3) that the party seeking relief acted with due diligence after notice of the entry of judgment, and (4) that no substantial prejudice will result to the other party).

the district court entered a default judgment afte r the defendant’s attorney neglected to serve and file an answer.

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N WORKE, Judge Appellant challenges the district court’s dismissal of this case

concerning the circumstances in which a judgment may properly be vacated.

These factors are known as the Finden factors

See Finden v. Klaas , 268 Minn. 268 , , 749-50 (1964) (setting forth factors for deciding whether to grant relief when default judgment is entered solely because of "neglect of counsel").

See Finden v. Klaas , (discussing Minn. R. Civ.