Cyrus E. Olson, Appellant,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A16-1238

Cyrus E. Olson,
Appellant,

vs.

Todd Jackson Trucking, LLC, et al.,
Respondents.

Filed March 20, 2017
Reversed and remanded
Schellhas, Judge

Olmsted County District Court
File No. 55-CV-16-2528

Kenneth R. White, Law Office of Kenneth R. White, P.C., Mankato, Minnesota; and

Kevin O’C. Green, Law Offices of Kevin O’ C. Green, P.A., Mankato, Minnesota (for
appellant)

Paul J. Rocheford, Stephen M. Warner, Arthur, Chapman, Kettering, Smetak & Pikala,
P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondents)

Considered and decided by Schellhas, Presiding Judge; Kirk, Judge; and Bratvold,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
SCHELLHAS, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court’ s order denying his motion for rule 60.02
relief. We reverse and remand.

2
FACTS
This case arises from a car accident involving appellant Cyrus Olson and
respondents Justin Marshman and Todd Ja ckson Trucking (TJT). At the time of the
accident Olson was a passenger in a vehicle that was struck from behind by a commercial
vehicle driven by Marshman in the course and scope of his employment with TJT. On
May 30, 2014, Olson commen ced the present action by se rvice of a summons and
complaint. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 3.01(a). TJT ackno wledged service and receipt of the
summons and complaint by U.S. mail on June 4, 2014. In the complaint, Olson alleged that
Marshman negligently caused the car accide nt that severely injured Olson because
Marshman lost control of the commercial ve hicle and because the commercial vehicle’s
brakes were not properly maintained. Counsel initially agreed to fo cus their efforts on
discovery about causation and damages. From June 2014 through Ap ril 2015, the parties
exchanged discovery requests and responses and attempted to schedule depositions.
On October 13, 2015, counsel discussed the case by telephone and Olson’s counsel
admitted to missing the rule 5.04 filing deadline. TJT’s counsel asked Olson’s counsel for
an e-mail, outlining Olson’s posit ion on the rule 5.04 dismis sal, but TJT’s counsel never
received such an e-mail. On December 8, 2015, TJT’s counsel told Olson’s counsel that he
thought the case had been automatically dismissed by operation of Minn. R. Civ. P. 5.04(a).
On April 8, 2016, Olson filed the action in Olmsted County District Court. On
April 12, 2016, Olson filed a rule 60.02 motio n, asking the district court for an order
excusing compliance with Minn. R. Civ. P. 5.04(a), and arguing that he was entitled to rule
60.02 relief because the facts of this case supported his request for relief on all four Finden

3
factors, and also that he was entitled to relie f under the theory of equitable estoppel. TJT
filed a letter with the district court stating its belief that the action was deemed dismissed
with prejudice under Minn. R. Civ. P. 5.04(a).
On May 4, 2016, the district court ordere d dismissal of the action with prejudice
under Minn. R. Civ. P. 5.04(a) and entered judgment, noting that the action was filed more
than one year after commencem ent against TJT and that a s tipulation to extend the filing
period had not been entered. The court sche duled a hearing on July 15, 2016, to hear
Olson’s rule 60.02 motion, but neither Olson nor his counsel appeared. The court therefore
denied Olson’s rule 60.02 motion, stating:
Based on the record, the Court fi nds that the plaintiff is not
entitled to Rule 60.02 Relief because he cannot make a
showing: 1) that he had a reas onable excuse for neglecting to
file the case in a timely manner; and 2) that he acted diligently
upon discovery of his mistake which led to judgment being
entered. Thus, plaintiff is not entitled to Rule 60.02 relief.

The district court did not address Olson’s equitable estoppel argument. This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
I
Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 5.04(a) provides that “[a]ny 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 fili ng period.” Olson argues that th e district court abused its
discretion by denying his rule 60.02 motion for relief from the judg ment entered under
Minn. R. Civ. P. 5.04(a) because the record reflects that he met all four Finden factors.

4
“Rule 60.02 is applicable to a Ru le 5.04(a) ‘deemed’ dismissal.” Gams v. Houghton, 884
N.W.2d 611, 617–18 (Minn. 2016). Rule 60.02( a) provides relief from “a final judgment
. . . order, or proceeding” for, among other re asons, “[m]istake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(a); see also Cole v. Wutzke, 884 N.W.2d 634,
637 (Minn. 2016). “[T]he district court must consider, and expressly find that a party
satisfied, all four of the Finden factors in order to grant relief under Rule 60.02(a).” Gams,
884 N.W.2d at 619 (quotation omitted); Cole, 884 N.W.2d at 637. The four Finden factors
are: “(1) a debatably meritorious claim; (2 ) a reasonable excuse fo r the movant’s failure
or neglect to act; (3) the mova nt acted with due diligence af ter learning of the error or
omission; and (4) no substantial prejudice will result to the other party if relief is granted.”
Gams, 884 N.W.2d at 620 (quotations omitted).
“The decision whether to gr ant Rule 60.02 relief is ba sed on all the surrounding
facts of each specific case, and is committed to the sound discretion of the district court.”
Id. “[A] district court will not be reversed on appeal except for a clear abuse of discretion.”
Id. (quotation omitted). “[ T]he district court is in the best position to evaluate the
reasonableness of the excuse, the prejudice to the other party, and whether the party has a
reasonable claim or defense.” Id. (quotation omitted). “A district court abuses its discretion
when it acts under a misapprehension of the la w or when its factual findings are clearly
erroneous.” Id. (citation and quotations omitted).
In this case, the district court denied Olson’s rule 60.02 mo tion because the court
found that Olson could not demonstrate that he had a reasonable excuse for neglecting to
timely file the action and becau se he could not demonstrate that he acted diligently upon

5
discovering the mistake that led to judgment being entered. The district court did not
address the first or fourth Finden factors.1 The findings of fact merely recite the procedural
history of the case and note that neither Olson nor his counsel was present for the July 15,
2016 hearing on the rule 60.02 motion.
In two recent decisions, the Minnesota Supr eme Court held that the district court
abused its discretion by denying relief under rule 60.02 without making findings on all four
Finden factors. Id. at 621 (holding that “[t]he district court’s conclusory statement [wa]s
not sufficient to determine whether the co urt properly considered and applied the Finden
test” where the court “merely concluded that . . . Plaintiff did not prove all four [ Finden]
elements”); Cole, 884 N.W.2d at 639 (holding that “the district court abused its discretion
in failing to consider all four Finden requirements, in light of the surrounding
circumstances of the case,” where the district court only made findings on the reasonable-
excuse requirement). The supreme court explai ned that “effective appellate review under
an abuse-of-discretion standa rd is only possible when the district court has issued
sufficiently detailed findings of fact or conc lusions of law to demonstrate that it has
considered all of the relevant factors.” Gams, 884 N.W.2d at 621. The district court is in
the best position to assess the Finden factors, so the supreme court has “expressed serious
doubts as to the utility of un dertaking a Rule 60.02 analys is at the appellate level.” Id. at

1 Both parties agree that only the second and third Finden factors are contested.
Specifically, TJT concedes that Olson has a debatably meritorious claim and does not argue
that TJT was prejudiced.

6
620. In both cases, the supreme court remanded to the district court for reconsideration and
additional findings. Id. at 621; Cole, 884 N.W.2d at 639.
The record in this case precludes effectiv e appellate review. The district court’s
limited findings only contain conclusory statements that are not sufficient for this court to
determine whether the district court properly considered and applied the Finden test.
Specifically, the order does not address whethe r the district court considered Olson’s
conduct and excuse separate from his attorney’s conduct to determine whether it is fair to
attribute the failures of Olson’s counsel to Ol son. We reverse and remand for the district
court to provide sufficiently detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law to demonstrate
that the court considered all of the Finden factors.
II
Olson also argues that “equitable estoppel precluded dismissal of this litigation.”
“Equitable estoppel is a doctrine addressed to the discretion of the court and is intended to
prevent a party from taking unconscionable a dvantage of his own wr ong by asserting his
strict legal rights.” Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc. , 683 N.W.2d 771, 777 (Minn. 2004)
(quotation omitted). The district court did not address the esto ppel argument in its order,
and we therefore decline to consider it. See Hoyt Inv. Co. v. Bloomington Commerce &
Trade Ctr. Assocs. , 418 N.W.2d 173, 175 (Minn. 19 88) (stating that “an undecided
question is not usually amenable to appellate review”).
Reversed and remanded.