Cited by

To support its decision, reasoning that a challenge to an OFP must be through “an appeal from the original order.” In Steeves, w e concluded that OFPs “are final orders in special proceedings” that are immediately appealable.

“toll the appeal deadline when they do not follow an actual trial [and] are thus [arguably] noncompliant with the rules of civil procedure.” This uncertainty stems from a 1993 precedential opinion of this court, which held that a “motion for a new trial or amended findings does not extend the time to appeal a final order granting or denying a domestic abuse petition.”

“Orders under section 518B.01 are final orders in special proceedings and are appealable.”

of Civil Procedure 60.02 allows the district court, under the circumstances described in the rule, to “order a new trial or grant such other relief as may be just.” Sanchez and the district court repeatedly refer to the relief Sanchez sought as a “new trial.” A domestic-abuse proceeding, however, is brought under Minn. Stat. § 518B.01 (2022) and is a “special proceeding.”

-18 (Minn. App. 1993) (conclu ding that domestic-abuse proceedings are “special proceedings” in which motions for new trial are not authorized).

(“[A] new trial motion in domestic abuse proceedings under Minn. Stat. § 518B.01 is not authorized, and an order denying such a motion is not appealable.”).

(“Domestic abuse proceedings brought pursuant to Minn.Stat.

(noting that order for protection is appealable as final order in special proceeding).

( (discussing which new trial motions are authorized in special proceedings); (holding that a new trial motion in order for protection proceedings is not authorized, and order denying such a motion is not appealable)) (emphasis added).

-56 (Minn.1985) (notice of appeal is liberally construed in favor of its sufficiency; notice of appeal not insufficient due to defects that could not have been misleading); (applying Kelly); (applying Kelly).