Setting aside a Minnesota default judgment: one year, and a separate route if you were never notified
Minnesota procedure · Last verified August 17, 2026
Minnesota's relief-from-judgment rule looks conventional until its last paragraph, which quietly preserves three powers outside the six lettered grounds. One of them matters enormously to anyone who never knew they had been sued.
And in Minnesota that happens more than elsewhere, because service — not filing — starts the case, and a case can run for a year without ever reaching a court file.
The six grounds
Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02:
Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud; etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or the party's legal representatives from a final judgment (other than a marriage dissolution decree), order, or proceeding and may order a new trial or grant such other relief as may be just for the following reasons:
(a) Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (b) Newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59.03; (c) Fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (d) The judgment is void; (e) The judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (f) Any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.
Note the exclusion at the top: marriage dissolution decrees are outside the rule.
One year, for three of them
The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (a), (b), and (c) not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. A Rule 60.02 motion does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation.
| Ground | Outer limit |
|---|---|
| (a) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect | 1 year |
| (b) newly discovered evidence | 1 year |
| (c) fraud, misrepresentation, misconduct | 1 year |
| (d) void judgment | reasonable time only |
| (e) satisfied, released, discharged, or no longer equitable | reasonable time only |
| (f) any other reason justifying relief | reasonable time only |
And, as in most states, the motion does not stop the judgment. Filing is not a stay — if a garnishment is running, that needs separate attention. See stopping a Minnesota garnishment, where returning the exemption claim to the creditor within ten days is what actually protects the money.
The three preserved powers
The final paragraph is where Minnesota differs:
This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding, or to grant relief to a defendant not actually personally notified as provided in Rule 4.043, or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court. Writs of coram nobis, coram vobis, audita querela, and bills of review and bills in the nature of a bill of review are abolished, and the procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent action.
Three powers survive the six grounds:
- An independent action for relief from a judgment.
- Relief to a defendant not actually personally notified, as provided in Rule 4.043.
- Setting aside a judgment for fraud upon the court — distinct from ground (c) fraud by an adverse party.
The second is the one to look for first in any default case. It is not an appeal to excusable neglect and it does not ask the court to forgive anything: it addresses the situation where the defendant was never actually notified.
Given how Minnesota commences actions — by service, often long before filing — that situation arises more often here than in states where a court file exists from day one.
Why the Minnesota context matters
Two features of Minnesota practice shape default cases:
Service commences the case. Under Rule 3.01, an action is commenced when the summons is served, when a waiver is signed, or on delivery to the sheriff followed by service within 60 days.
Filing can wait a year. Rule 5.04(a) deems an action dismissed with prejudice if it is not filed within one year of commencement, absent a stipulation signed inside that year.
Both are covered in commencing a Minnesota action. The practical consequence for a defaulted defendant: check whether the case was ever filed, and when it was commenced. A judgment in a case that should have been dismissed under Rule 5.04(a) is worth examining closely.
What a default judgment may award
Minn. R. Civ. P. 55.02:
Plaintiffs; Counterclaimants; Cross-Claimants This rule is applicable whether the party entitled to judgment by default is a plaintiff, a third-party plaintiff, or a party who has pleaded a cross-claim or counterclaim. In all cases, a judgment by default is subject to the limitations of Rule 54.03.
Rule 54.03 caps the relief. A default judgment that exceeds what the complaint demanded is vulnerable on that ground alone, without reaching the merits.
Choosing the ground
| If… | Use |
|---|---|
| You were never actually personally notified | Rule 4.043, preserved by 60.02 — no excusable-neglect showing |
| Service was defective in law | (d) void — no one-year cap |
| You knew but missed the date | (a) excusable neglect — one year |
| The other side misled the court or you | (c) fraud, or fraud upon the court if it goes to the court itself |
| The judgment has been paid | (e) |
| The award exceeds the complaint | Rule 54.03, via 55.02 |
The distinction between (d) and the Rule 4.043 route is worth holding onto: (d) says the judgment is legally void; 4.043 addresses the factual position of a defendant who never got notice. They can be argued together.
How Minnesota compares
| Minnesota | Wisconsin | Colorado | Nevada | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outer limit, mistake / excusable neglect | 1 year | 1 year | 182 days | 6 months |
| Void judgment time-limited | no | no | no | no |
| Route for a never-notified defendant | yes, Rule 4.043 | — | yes, answer to the merits within 182 days | yes, NRCP 60(d)(2) |
| Fraud on the court preserved separately | yes | yes | yes | yes |
| Motion suspends the judgment | no, expressly | no, expressly | no, expressly | no, expressly |
| Reaches dissolution decrees | no | — | — | — |
A short checklist
- Ask first whether you were actually notified. If not, the Rule 4.043 route preserved by 60.02 is better than excusable neglect.
- Check whether the case was filed, and when it was commenced. Rule 5.04(a) dismisses an unfiled case with prejudice at one year.
- Count one year from entry for grounds (a), (b) and (c).
- Move within a reasonable time regardless — that applies to every ground.
- Consider (d) void where service was legally defective; it carries no one-year cap.
- Compare the judgment to the complaint. Rule 54.03 limits what a default may award.
- Arrange a stay separately. The motion does not suspend the judgment.
- If money is being taken, file the exemption claim too — within ten days of the earnings exemption notice.
Where these rules live
- Minn. R. Civ. P. 3 — Commencement of the Action
- Minn. R. Civ. P. 4 — Process
- Minn. R. Civ. P. 54 — Judgments; Costs
- Minn. R. Civ. P. 55 — Default
- Minn. R. Civ. P. 59 — New Trial
- Minn. R. Civ. P. 60 — Relief from Judgment or Order
This page explains what the rules say. It isn't legal advice, and what constitutes excusable neglect under Rule 60.02(a) is developed in case law this site doesn't cover.