Can You Get a Default Judgment After a Late Answer?

What puts a defendant in default under Minnesota’s rules?

A Minnesota defendant is in default when it has failed to answer or otherwise defend within the time the rules allow. The deadline comes from Rule 12.01, the default remedy from Rule 55.01, and the summons itself warns the defendant of both.

Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.01 states: “Defendant shall serve an answer within 21 days after service of the summons upon that defendant unless the court directs otherwise pursuant to Rule 4.043.” I suggest checking that text and any court order in the case, because the court can change the deadline. Under Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.01, the summons must “notify the defendant that if the defendant fails to do so judgment by default will be rendered against the defendant for the relief demanded in the complaint.” My page on what an answer must contain covers the pleading itself.

Minn. R. Civ. P. 55.01 is the default rule: “When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend within the time allowed therefor by these rules or by statute, and that fact is made to appear by affidavit, judgment by default shall be entered against that party”. The Minnesota Court of Appeals read “otherwise defend” the way federal courts read the parallel federal rule: “attacks on the service, or motions to dismiss, or for better particulars, and the like, which may prevent default without presently pleading to the merits” (Black v. Rimmer, 700 N.W.2d 521 (Minn. App. 2005)). Sitting for a deposition and talking with the plaintiff’s lawyers did not count. A case in federal court follows Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 instead.

How does a Minnesota court decide a default motion after a late answer?

A Minnesota court decides a default motion against a late-answering defendant in its discretion, using four requirements. The Minnesota Supreme Court has said “denial of a motion for a default judgment is proper when four requirements are met,” and in the leading case the late defendant paired its answer with a motion for more time.

The leading case is Coller v. Guardian Angels Roman Catholic Church of Chaska, 294 N.W.2d 712 (Minn. 1980). The individual defendants there had moved to dismiss and then taken part in discovery for a year and a half without serving their answer, which their attorney had prepared but failed to serve through inadvertence. Five days after the plaintiff moved for default, the attorney served the answer and moved to enlarge the time to answer. The trial court denied default and granted the extension, and the Supreme Court affirmed. It held that “Relief from a default judgment or denial of a motion for a default judgment is proper when four requirements are met: defendant has a reasonable defense on the merits; defendant has a reasonable excuse for his failure to answer; defendant acted with due diligence after notice of the entry of judgment; and no substantial prejudice will result to other parties.”

The motion for more time rests on Minn. R. Civ. P. 6.02, which lets the court, “upon motion made after the expiration of the specified period permit the act to be done where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect”. Coller treated that decision as discretionary: “A trial court’s action permitting a party to serve or file a pleading after expiration of a time limit is discretionary and will not be reversed unless the discretion has been abused.” In Black, the Court of Appeals applied the same four factors to a defendant that first appeared at the default hearing. It affirmed default after weighing all four, reasoning that “one strong showing will not make up for weak showings on two factors” and no showing on the fourth.

What does each of the four factors require?

Each factor needs specific proof from the late defendant, and the Minnesota Supreme Court requires all four. In its words, “Although some showings may be stronger than others,” the moving party must establish all four requirements (Cole v. Wutzke, 884 N.W.2d 634 (Minn. 2016)).

1. A reasonable defense on the merits. Finden v. Klaas, 268 Minn. 268, 128 N.W.2d 748 (Minn. 1964), accepted a pleaded self-defense because, if established, it was a complete defense to the claim. Cole explains that the movant generally must provide specific information, and “Conclusory allegations in moving papers are ordinarily insufficient.” I suggest a proposed answer and an affidavit stating the facts behind each defense, because Cole looks for that specific information.
2. A reasonable excuse for missing the deadline. Who caused the miss matters. “Minnesota courts have consistently held that default caused by a party’s attorney rather than by the party himself should be excused” (Coller). By contrast, “Neglect of the party itself which leads to entry of a default judgment is inexcusable, and such neglect is a proper ground for refusing to reopen a judgment” (Black). Cole adds that the case law “reflects a strong policy favoring the granting of relief when judgment is entered through no fault of the client.” Cole also holds that “there are no per se rules of law requiring either the grant or denial of a Rule 60.02(a) motion” on this factor, and that “the decision is fact intensive.”
3. Due diligence. Cole measures diligence from the time the defendant learns of its error. In Coller, serving the answer within days of the default motion satisfied this factor.
4. No substantial prejudice to the plaintiff. Delay and added expense alone did not show substantial prejudice in Finden. Cole places the burden on the movant to show that the delay “has not resulted in a real and particular harm to the other party, such as the loss of witnesses or evidence, and that the other party has not otherwise detrimentally relied on the resulting dismissal or judgment.”

When does accepting a late answer waive the default?

A plaintiff that receives a late answer, does not object, and moves the case forward can waive its right to seek default. The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed a default judgment on that ground, and a later panel applied the same rule to a plaintiff that proceeded with discovery.

In Doe v. Legacy Broadcasting of Minnesota, Inc., 504 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. App. 1993), the plaintiff’s attorney received a late answer and did not object. The parties then mediated and scheduled depositions, and four months later the plaintiff moved for default and won a judgment. The court reversed, stating that “An attorney may waive the right to object to an adversary’s untimely service of pleadings.” It rested the waiver on two facts: the time between receiving the answer and filing the motion, and the parties’ mediation and trial preparation. In Stroud v. Hennepin County Medical Center, 544 N.W.2d 42 (Minn. App. 1996), the court applied Doe to a plaintiff that accepted the defendants’ answers and moved forward with discovery before seeking default.

For a plaintiff, the practical point is timing. If you intend to rely on the late service, I suggest objecting in writing when the answer arrives, because the waiver cases turned on what the plaintiff did after receiving the answer.

What procedure applies to a default application in Minnesota?

Minnesota’s procedure depends on the type of claim and on whether the defendant has appeared. A money-only contract claim can go to the court administrator on affidavit; every other claim requires a court application, and a defendant that has appeared, including by serving a late answer, gets written notice before the hearing.

• Money-only contract claims. Under Rule 55.01(a), “When the plaintiff’s claim against a defendant is upon a contract for the payment of money only,” the court administrator enters judgment “upon request of the plaintiff and upon affidavit of the amount due”.
• All other claims. Rule 55.01(b) provides: “In all other cases, the party entitled to a judgment by default shall apply to the court therefor.” It adds: “If a party against whom judgment is sought has appeared in the action, that party shall be served with written notice of the application for judgment at least 14 days prior to the hearing on such application.”
• What counts as appearing. Under Minn. R. Civ. P. 5.01, “A party appears when that party serves or files any document in the proceeding.” A served answer, even a late one, is an appearance. A letter asking the plaintiff for more time was not one in Howard v. Frondell, 387 N.W.2d 205 (Minn. App. 1986), so those defendants were not entitled to notice.
• Filing the case. A Minnesota lawsuit can be commenced by serving the summons and complaint, as in Cole, so some cases are served but never filed. Rule 5.04(a) provides: “Any action that is not filed with the court within one year of commencement against any party is deemed dismissed with prejudice against all parties unless the parties within that year sign a stipulation to extend the filing period.” I suggest confirming the case is filed before any default application, because an unfiled case can be deemed dismissed under that rule. I also suggest reading the current text of Rule 5.04(a) before relying on that period.
• Motion scheduling. Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 117.01 provides: “Default hearings are scheduled as motions, and a date and time for default hearings shall be obtained from the court administrator or a designated motion assignment deputy. None of the provisions of Rule 115 apply to default hearings.”

Minnesota lawyers also work under the Professionalism Aspirations, which state: “We will not cause a default or dismissal to be entered, when we know the identity of an opposing counsel, without first making a good faith attempt to inquire about the counsel’s intention to proceed.” Their preamble says, “These standards are not to be used as a basis for litigation, lawyer discipline, or court sanctions,” so they guide conduct rather than decide motions. My default judgment motion forms page covers the papers for an uncontested application.

How should a defendant respond after missing the answer deadline?

A Minnesota defendant that missed its deadline should serve its answer as soon as possible and, if a default motion is pending, move under Rule 6.02 for leave to answer late, because that combination succeeded in Coller. The supporting affidavits should prove all four factors with specific facts, because the court requires all four.

I suggest building the response in this order, because each step supplies proof for one of the four factors:

1. The answer, served promptly. A prompt answer supports the due-diligence factor. It is also an appearance under Rule 5.01, which entitles the defendant to written notice of a court application under Rule 55.01(b). For a corporation, the Minnesota Supreme Court has reaffirmed “that a corporation must be represented by a licensed attorney when appearing in district court” (Nicollet Restoration, Inc. v. Turnham, 486 N.W.2d 753 (Minn. 1992)). The court allows a complaint a nonattorney signed for a corporation to be cured by amendment only within limits: “if a corporation knows or should know, that its action is improper, amendment will not be allowed” (Save Our Creeks v. City of Brooklyn Park, 699 N.W.2d 307 (Minn. 2005)).
2. A Rule 6.02 motion and an opposition to default. The motion should explain why the deadline passed, with an affidavit from whoever caused the miss, because the excuse factor turns on who caused it. For the Rule 6.02 motion, Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 115.04(a) provides: “No motion shall be heard until the moving party pays any required motion filing fee, serves the following documents on all opposing counsel and self-represented litigants, and files the documents with the court administrator at least 21 days before the hearing”. Rule 115.10 adds: “No motion will be heard unless the parties have conferred in an attempt to resolve their differences prior to the hearing. The moving party shall initiate the conference. The moving party shall certify to the court, before the time of the hearing, compliance with this rule or any reasons for not complying”. The default hearing itself falls under Rule 117.01, which states: “None of the provisions of Rule 115 apply to default hearings.” I suggest checking the current rules and the hearing notice, because they set the timing for your motion.
3. A defense stated with facts. Cole holds that conclusory allegations are ordinarily not enough. The affidavit should name the disputed charges, the contract term, or the missing performance, and attach the documents that show it, because specific facts carry this factor.
4. A direct showing on prejudice. The papers should show that no witness or evidence was lost during the delay, because the movant carries that burden.

In one defense matter, a business client sued over unpaid invoices missed its answer deadline, and the plaintiff moved for default. I asked the plaintiff’s attorney to postpone the hearing while we negotiated, and the attorney asked what defense my client would raise. I identified the specific charges and interest my client disputed. The plaintiff then agreed to take the hearing off the calendar in exchange for a settlement proposal or a served answer, and I served the answer by email. The motion was resolved before any hearing once the plaintiff saw the defense. My page on the first weeks after your business is served covers the earlier steps that keep a company out of this position.

What happens if the default judgment has already been entered?

A Minnesota defendant with a default judgment already entered against it can move to vacate under Rule 60.02, and on an excusable-neglect motion under clause (a) the court applies the same four factors. The court can grant relief on conditions, including payment of the plaintiff’s costs and attorney fees. Waiver is a separate ground: in Doe, “Without moving to reopen or vacate the default judgment, appellant filed his notice of appeal,” and the Court of Appeals reversed because “In accepting appellant’s late answer and preparing for trial, respondent waived her objection to appellant’s untimely answer.”

Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 provides: “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”. The defendants in Finden and Black relied on clause (a): “Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect”. The rule also states: “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.” I suggest reading the current text before relying on any timing, because the rule sets an outer limit for motions on grounds (a), (b), and (c).

In Gams v. Houghton, 884 N.W.2d 611 (Minn. 2016), the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the district court must make findings on all four factors before granting relief. It also held that a court “does not have unfettered discretion to deny relief when the movant has met his burden of establishing all four” requirements. In Finden, the Supreme Court reversed a refusal to vacate and said the trial court could have protected the plaintiffs “by requiring as a condition to vacate the judgment that defendant pay costs and disbursements, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.” My page on vacating a default judgment covers the Rule 60.02 grounds in more detail.

How should a plaintiff weigh a default motion against a late answer?

A Minnesota plaintiff holding a late answer should weigh what the motion can realistically win against what it costs. The cases above affirmed default where the defendant’s own neglect caused the miss (Black), and approved denial where the defendant’s attorney caused it and the defendant acted quickly with a real defense (Coller).

The factors I suggest weighing, each drawn from the rules and cases above:

• The defendant’s likely showing. If the late defendant can show all four factors, Coller and Gams point toward denial of default or later vacatur. A short delay caused by the defendant’s attorney, followed by a prompt answer, fits the pattern Coller approved.
• Who caused the delay. A defendant that ignored the summons itself fits Black, where default was affirmed.
• Your own conduct since the answer arrived. Mediation, scheduling depositions, or other trial preparation after receiving the answer supported waiver in Doe and Stroud.
• The cost of a contested motion. For a claim that is not “upon a contract for the payment of money only,” Rule 55.01(b) requires an application to the court. A defendant that has appeared through a late answer “shall be served with written notice of the application for judgment at least 14 days prior to the hearing on such application.” If a default judgment is later vacated, Finden shows the court can require the defendant to pay costs and a reasonable attorney fee as a condition, but that is a matter of discretion.
• Contact with known counsel. The Professionalism Aspirations ask for a good faith inquiry before causing a default when you know who represents the other side.

Late Answers and Default Judgments in Minnesota

A late answer does not end a Minnesota plaintiff’s right to ask for default, but it changes the question the court asks. The court looks for a reasonable defense, a reasonable excuse, prompt action, and no substantial prejudice, and it denies default or vacates a default judgment when the defendant proves all four. A plaintiff that accepts the late answer and keeps litigating can waive the objection. This page sits within my Minnesota business litigation practice. If your company is deciding whether to seek a default, or responding to one after a missed deadline, email [email protected] with a brief description of the case and its key dates. I can start an intake and conflict check before you send any confidential documents.