Cited by

“Whether service of process was effective, and personal jurisdiction therefore exists, is a question of law that we review de novo.” (quoting Shamrock Dev., ).

Indeed, caselaw construing rule 4.05 prior to its 2018 amendment referred to the procedure contemplated by the rule as “service by mail.” See, (stating that rule 4.05 “covers ‘Service by Mail’”); Kokosh v. $4657.00 U.S. Currency, d 2 “Form 22B” is part of the appendix to the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure and is entitled “Waiver of Service of Summons.” Minn. R. Civ.

P. 4.03; -65 (Minn. 2016) (concluding service by certified mail does not comply with rules governing service of summons and complaint).

“Whether service of process was effective, and personal jurisdiction therefore exists, is a 12 question of law that [this court] review[s] de novo.” (quotation omitted).

Appellate courts review “construction and application of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure de novo.” (quotation omitted).

Certified mail—which is more formal than the mail process used here—was found to be insufficient service by th e Minnesota Supreme Court in Melillo v. Heitland

Appellate courts “must apply the facts as found by the district court unless those factual findings are clearly erroneous.” (quotation omitted).

Jaeger, d at 609 (d 862, 864 (Minn. 2016) (the plain language of the service-by-mail rule, Minn. R. Civ.

7 Cf. Melillo v. Heitland , , 865 (Minn. 2016) ("In 1996, our amendment to Rule 4.04 ...

See, (holding that the plain language of the service-by-mail rule, Minn. R. Civ.