Backroads Development LLC v. Felicia Maria Munguia

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS

Backroads Development LLC,

Respondent,

vs.

Felicia Maria Munguia,

Appellant.

SPECIAL
TERM
ORDER1
A26-1001
Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Reyes, Judge; and Rasmusson,
Judge.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR THE
FOLLOWING REASONS:
This appeal was filed on June 11, 2026. According to the notice of appeal, appellant
Felicia Munguia seeks review of a June 8, 2026 eviction judgment. Appellant filed a
certificate of service with the notice of appeal stating that the notice of appeal was served
on counsel for respondent Backroads Development LLC by email on June 11, 2026.
On June 24, 2026, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellant did
not file a response to the motion.

1 Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order is nonprecedential, except
as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
2

A party who feels aggrieved by a judgment in an eviction action may appeal within
15 days as provided for civil actions in district court. Minn. Stat. § 504B.371, subd. 2
(2024). A notice of appeal must be filed with the clerk of the appellate courts and served
on the adverse party or parties within the appeal period. Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.01,
subd. 1. Service on a party represented by an attorney must be made on the attorney. Minn.
R. Civ. App. P. 125.02. The failure to timely serve the notice of appeal on the adverse
party is a jurisdictional defect requiring dismissal. Hansing v. McGroarty, 433 N.W.2d
441, 442 (Minn. App. 1988), rev. denied (Minn. Jan. 25, 1989).
Respondent contends that we must dismiss this appeal because appellant did not
properly serve the notice of appeal on counsel for respondent within the appeal period.
The register of actions indicates that the district court entered an eviction judgment
against appellant on June 8, 2026. The time to file and serve the notice of appeal expired
on June 23, 2026. See Minn. Stat. § 504B.371, subd. 2; Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.01,
subd. 1.
Respondent acknowledges that appellant served the notice of appeal on
respondent’s counsel by email on June 11, 2026. But respondent argues that appellant’s
service of the notice of appeal by email was improper because respondent’s counsel did
not consent to email service.
Service of the notice of appeal may be “electronic by use of the appellate courts’
electronic filing system if required or permitted by court order, personal, or by United
States Mail.” Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 125.03. “Service by facsimile or other electronic
3

means other than as authorized or required by an order of the Minnesota Supreme Court is
allowed only with the consent of the party to be served, and is effective upon receipt.”
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 125.03.
Because service by email is not listed in Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 125.03 as a proper
method of service, it is service by “other electronic means” under that rule and is effective
only if the recipient consents to email service. In addition, an advisory committee comment
to rule 125.03 states that service by email is permitted “only where the party to be served
has agreed to it for the type of document involved.” Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 125.03 2008
advisory comm. cmt. Because respondent’s counsel did not consent to email service,
appellant’s service of the notice of appeal on respondent’s counsel by email on June 11,
2026, was not effective service. And because appellant has not established that appellant
properly served the notice of appeal on respondent’s counsel within the appeal period, we
must dismiss this appeal. See Hansing, 433 N.W.2d at 442.
Appellant filed a motion with the notice of appeal requesting recusal of the district
court judge assigned to the underlying eviction case. Because this appeal is being
dismissed, we deny appellant’s motion as moot.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted.
2. This appeal is dismissed.
3. Appellant’s motion for recusal of the assigned district court judge is denied
as moot.
4
4. The clerk of the appellate courts shall provide copies of this order to the
Honorable Michael J. Mayer, the self-represented appellant, counsel for respondent, and
the district court administrator.
Dated: July 21, 2026
BY THE COURT
_________________________________
Michelle A. Larkin
Presiding Judge
_________________________________
Michelle A. Larkin