Cited by

post-decision motions, including rule 60.02 motions); (“A postdecision motion to amend a prejudgment order is not timely if it is filed after expiration of the 60–day period to appeal from the judgment, and because such a motion is not timely, it does not toll the period for appeal from the order or judgment.” ()), rev. denied (Minn. June 18, 2008); see also Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n v. True Gravity Ventures, LLC, d 837, 843 n.3 (Minn. 2025) (explaining that notice is not required to commenc

We are also mindful of the context of other rules to ensure we interpret rules “according to their purpose.”

“[A] post-decision motion is not timely if it is made after the expiration of the 60-day period in which to appeal from the judgment.”

We do not interpret the rules of civil procedure “in isolation but read them in light of one another, interpreting them according to their purpose.”

“We do not read [the rules] in isolation but read them in light of one another, interpreting them according to their purpose.”

Moreover, “our longstanding principle is that a motion for a new trial cannot be filed after the time to appeal the resulting judgment has expired.” see Minn. R. Civ.

Mingen v. Mingen , , 727 (Minn. 2004) ; see Minn. R. Civ.

Mingen v. Mingen , , 727 (Minn. 2004).

2 (stating that a timely motion for amended findings tolls the time for appealing “the order or judgment that is the subject of such motion”); n.1 (Minn. 2004) (stating that an order denying a motion for amended findings is not independently appealable).

P. 5.04(a) from the scope of motions that seek relief from judgment, and therefore, “Rule 60.02 applies to Rule 5.04(a) dismissals”); (explaining that we “do not read" the rules “in isolation,” but instead “read them in light of one another”).

See, (citing 3 Eric J. Magnuson & David F. Herr, Minnesota Practice—Appellate Rules Ann. § 104.11 (2003 ed.)); Maxwell Comm’cns v. Webb Publ’g Co., n.6 (1994) (citing 3 Eric J. Magnuson, David F. Herr & Roger Haydock, Minnesota Practice—Appellate Rules Ann., 502 (1985)).

to support his contention that the district court’s jurisdiction concerning its own orders ends upon expiration of the appeal period, and that the district court’s orders are then final.

But we read our rules “in light of one another” and “according to their purpose.”

3); (interpreting Minn. R. Civ.

“If the time for appeal from an order expires without appeal having been taken, then the order becomes final and the district court’s jurisdiction to amend the order is terminated.” (reiterating that, after the passing of the period in which to appeal, an order becomes final, a motion to amend is untimely, and the district court’s jurisdiction to amend terminates).