Court Opinion

ID: 9707699
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:19:11.85094+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:41:45.387297
License: Public Domain

LANSING, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. The district court, on a motion to reopen for fraud or mistake, vacated the judgment and set the case for trial. A successor judge, on a subsequent motion for amended findings, concluded that there was no fraud or mistake. The majority acknowledges that the successor judge used an incorrect standard to arrive at this conclu*21sion. See Becker v. Alloy Hardfacing & Engineering Co., 401 N.W.2d 655, 659 (Minn. 1987) (instructing that wrong burden of proof is fundamental error). I do not think that the sweep of Minn.R.Civ.P. 63.01 is broad enough to overcome the flawed procedure. Moreover, the record demonstrates substantial evidentiary support for the district court’s initial decision.