Source: https://www.vlnmn.org/archives/tag/tony-morris
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 12:35:01+00:00

Document:
The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently held that strict compliance with the service requirements of Minn. Stat. § 504B.331 was necessary in eviction actions for the court to have personal jurisdiction over defendants.1 The decision overruled a line of cases which held that substantial compliance with the service requirements was sufficient.2 Strict compliance is required even when the defendant has actual knowledge of the eviction proceeding.3 This article explains the service requirements and provides tips for advising tenants in eviction actions.
defendant.7 Case law primarily deals with service of residential defendants who cannot be located.8 The following sections explain these requirements in detail.
? When the Court identifies a service defect, the defendants may be given a choice to either: 1 – consent to personal jurisdiction and proceed, or 2 – have the case dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. When advising pro se tenants, explain both options and be clear that after dismissing this case the landlord could still file again.
? Even a dismissed eviction case will remain on the defendant’s record. Defendants whose evictions are dismissed for service defects should orally request expungement during the hearing. If the referee in the eviction action declines to immediately expunge the eviction, the defendant should file a separate action for expungement.
? Service defects do not prevent parties to an eviction action from reaching a settlement agreement. If the parties decide that reaching a settlement agreement is preferable to litigation, they may reach a settlement agreement and consent to personal jurisdiction.
1Koski v. Johnson, WL 5300888 (Minn.App. September 23, 2013).
4Minn. Stat. § 504B.331(a) (2013).
5Id. at § 504B.331(d)(1)(i). 6 Id. at § 504B.331(d).
9Minn. Stat. § 504B.331(d)(1)(ii) (2013).
13Koski at *10 (Noting that the defendant moved for dismissal based on inadequate service at the same time as when she filed her answer on the merits, and never affirmatively acquiesced to the court’s jurisdiction).
14Id. (Explaining that filing an answer on the merits without raising a jurisdictional defense may be seen as “affirmatively invoking the court’s jurisdiction,” and may waive the defendant’s right to contest jurisdiction).

References: § 504
 v. 
 § 504
 § 504
 § 504
 § 504