Rule 4.Service
Last amended January 1, 2025 · Last verified July 1, 2026
Full Text of Rule 4
Advisory Committee Comments
Advisory Committee Comments—2023 Amendments
Rule 4.03(a) is amended to permit judges, justices, and court staff to be served at their office, if the complaint is related to the individual’s office, employment, or agency. The purpose of this rule change is to minimize service of judicial branch personnel at their home, and corresponding security concerns, by establishing an alternative means of service.
Advisory Committee Comments—2025 Amendment
Rule 4.03(e)(1) is amended in 2025 to remove the county auditor as a service recipient and to add the county attorney instead. County attorney offices may authorize front desk personnel or others to accept service of process. Counties and county attorney offices are encouraged to include information on their websites regarding how individuals can properly effectuate service.
Rule 4.03(e)(2) is amended in 2025 to add that if the defendant city, village or borough lacks a chief executive officer or clerk, service may be effected by delivering a copy to an officer performing a corresponding function under another name.
Rule 4.03(e)(3) is amended in 2025 to add that if the defendant town lacks a board chair or clerk, service may be effected by delivering a copy to an officer performing a corresponding function under another name.
Rule 4.03(e)(4) is amended in 2025 to remove language allowing service on any member the board or other governing body, and to add the chair of the board or other governing body as a service recipient. The rule is further amended to add that if the defendant school district lacks such a chair or lacks a clerk, treasurer, or superintendent, service may be effected by delivering a copy to an officer performing a corresponding function under another name.
Advisory Committee Comments—1996 Amendments
Rule 4.04 is amended to conform the rule to its federal counterpart, in part. The new provision adopts verbatim the provisions for service of process outside the United States contained in the federal rules. This modification is appropriate because this subject is handled well by the federal rule and because it is advantageous to have the two rules similar. This is particularly valuable given the dearth of state-court authority on foreign service of process. Existing portions of the rule are renumbered for clarity.
Advisory Committee Comments—2015 Amendments
Rule 4.04 is amended to implement a new statute directing the courts to accept documents without notarization if they are signed under the following language: “I declare under penalty of perjury that everything I have stated in this document is true and correct.” Minn. Stat. § 358.116 (2014) (codifying 2014 Minn. Laws ch. 204, § 3). The statute allows the courts to require specifically, by rule, that notarization is necessary. The difficulty in accomplishing and documenting notarization for documents that are e-filed and e-served militates against requiring formal notarization, and notarization often places a significant burden on self-represented litigants. Rule 15 of the Minnesota General Rules of Practice provides that documents signed in accordance with its terms constitute “affidavits.” Rule 15 of the Minnesota General Rules of Practice establishes uniform requirements for the formalities of documents signed under penalty of perjury.
Advisory Committee Comment—2020 Amendments
Rule 4.042 is amended as part of the extensive amendments made to the timing provisions of the rules. These amendments implement the adoption of a standard “day” for counting deadlines under the rules—counting all days regardless of the length of the period and standardizing the time periods, where practicable, to a 7-, 14-, 21- or 28-day schedule. The amendment to Rule 4.042 also lengthens the time to respond to a Complaint served following service of the Summons by publication to 21 days. This is the same period a party has following other forms of service of the Complaint, and there is no reason to require a shorter period. See Rule 12.01. This amendment is intended to obviate at least some motions for extension of the time to answer that are encountered under the shorter deadline in the previous rule.
Advisory Committee Comment—2018 Amendments
Rule 4.05 is completely revamped to replace the somewhat unreliable procedure relying on the “Acknowledgement of Service” form with a more straightforward procedure, used in federal court since 1993, relying on a “Waiver of Service” form. New Rule 4.05 is modeled closely on its federal counterpart. The former procedure created the illusion that valid service could be accomplished by U.S. Mail, but it was a procedure that gave control over the process completely to the defendant and little incentive to a plaintiff to make use of it. This rule does not authorize service by mere mailing—it is necessary for the defendant to waive formal service and return the waiver-of-service form. Service is accomplished and proven by the waiver, not the mailing. Additionally, the new procedure is not limited to delivery by mail or any other means expressly authorized by these rules—it allows valid service to be accomplished by any means that is agreed to the defendant being served—mail, private courier, email, or
even social media would all be acceptable if the defendant agreed to waive service under this rule. The only requirement is that the defendant sign and return a waiver-of-service form.
Amendment History
- (Amended effective July 1, 2021.)
- (Amended effective January 1, 2025.)
- (Amended effective July 1, 2015.)
- (Amended effective January 1, 2020.)
- (Amended effective July 1, 2018.)
- (Amended effective August 1, 2000.)
Plain-English Summary
Rule 4.01 requires the summons to name the court and the parties, be signed by the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s attorney, give an address for return service, state the deadline to answer, and warn that a default judgment can follow if the defendant does not respond. Rule 4.02 lets the sheriff or any other adult who is not a party to the case serve it.
Rule 4.03 works through service methods by defendant type. An individual is served personally or by leaving a copy at their usual home with a person of suitable age and discretion who lives there, with special provisions for people confined to an institution, minors under 14, and, since 2023, judicial branch employees sued over their office or employment, who may be served at work instead of at home. Partnerships and associations are served through a member or managing agent; corporations through an officer, managing agent, or authorized agent; the state through the Attorney General or a deputy or assistant Attorney General.
Rule 4.03(e) covers public corporations — counties, cities, towns, and school districts — each through a specific officer. A 2025 amendment changed how counties are served, replacing the county attorney or the chair of the county board in place of the former county auditor, and added a fallback officer for cities, towns, and school districts that lack the position the rule names.
Rule 4.04 covers service by publication when a defendant cannot otherwise be reached, and Rule 4.05 through 4.07 cover waiving formal service, the return of service, and amending a defective summons.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a friend or family member serve a Minnesota summons?
Yes. Rule 4.02 allows the sheriff or any other person who is at least 18 and not a party to the case to serve a summons.
How is a corporation served in Minnesota?
By delivering a copy of the summons to an officer, a managing agent, or another agent the corporation has authorized or that a statute designates to receive service.
How is a county served after the 2025 amendment?
By delivering a copy to the county attorney or the chair of the county board. The rule removed the former recipient, the county auditor, effective January 1, 2025.
Advisory Committee Comments—2021 Amendments
Rule 4.01 is amended to remove the requirement that a plaintiff have a Minnesota address for mail and personal service. The committee believes that this provision suited the needs of a different time, and that no compelling reason exists to require a Minnesota address to commence litigation. The committee believes that any address in the United States would provide a workable means of effecting either personal or mailed service. This conclusion is particularly applicable to signing of a summons by a member of the Minnesota Bar who may happen to have an office outside of Minnesota.
With the implementation of e-filing and e-service, the role of this requirement for an address for the signer of the summons is undoubtedly diminished. This provision nonetheless is an important backstop to e-service for cases where the plaintiff is either self-represented or represented by an attorney licensed in Minnesota but not maintaining an office in Minnesota.