debatably meritorious claim in Minnesota

2017Charson, 419 N.W.2d at 491-92 . “[A] debatably meritorious claim is one that, if established at trial, presents a cognizable claim for relief.” Cole v. Wutzke, 884 N.W.2d 634, 638 (Minn. 2016).

2016To satisfy this factor, the movant generally must provide “specific information” that clearly demonstrates the existence of the debatably meritorious claim. 3 Charson, 419 N.W.2d at 492 .

2016Specific information that clearly demonstrates the existence of a debatably meritorious defense satisfies this factor.” Turpin, 744 N.W.2d at 403 (citation omitted).

2015This factor requires “[s]pecific information that clearly demonstrates the existence of a debatably meritorious defense.” Northland Temporaries, Inc. v. Turpin, 744 N.W.2d 398, 403 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. Apr. 29, 2008).

2026Rather, we understand Post to be arguing that this court should reverse the denial of his rule 60.02 motion, vacate the OFP, and allow him an opportunity to respond to the petition for an OFP. 5 Applying the Finden factors, a district court may grant a rule 60.02 motion based on excusable neglect if the movant demonstrates “(1) a debatably meritorious claim; (2) a reasonable excuse for the movant’s failure or neglect to act; (3) the movant acted with due diligence after learning of the error or omission; and (4) no substantial prejudice will result to the other party if relief is granted.” Gam

2017The factors for relief under rule 60.02, most commonly referred to as the Finden factors, are “(1) a debatably meritorious claim; (2) a reasonable excuse for the movant’s failure or neglect to act; (3) the movant acted with due diligence after learning of the error or omission; and (4) no substantial prejudice will result to the other party if relief is granted.” Id. (quotations omitted); see also Finden v. Klas, 268 Minn. 268 , 128 N.W.2d 748 (1964).

2026The movant is not entitled to relief unless they satisfy all four Finden factors based on an evaluation of “all the surrounding circumstances of [the] case.” Cole v. Wutzke, 884 N.W.2d 634, 637 (Minn. 2016).

2017Charson, 419 N.W.2d at 491-92 . “[A] debatably meritorious claim is one that, if established at trial, presents a cognizable claim for relief.” Cole v. Wutzke, 884 N.W.2d 634, 638 (Minn. 2016).

2017The factors for relief under rule 60.02, most commonly referred to as the Finden factors, are “(1) a debatably meritorious claim; (2) a reasonable excuse for the movant’s failure or neglect to act; (3) the movant acted with due diligence after learning of the error or omission; and (4) no substantial prejudice will result to the other party if relief is granted.” Id. (quotations omitted); see also Finden v. Klas, 268 Minn. 268 , 128 N.W.2d 748 (1964).

2017The factors for relief under rule 60.02, most commonly referred to as the Finden factors, are “(1) a debatably meritorious claim; (2) a reasonable excuse for the movant’s failure or neglect to act; (3) the movant acted with due diligence after learning of the error or omission; and (4) no substantial prejudice will result to the other party if relief is granted.” Id. (quotations omitted); see also Finden v. Klas, 268 Minn. 268 , 128 N.W.2d 748 (1964).

2016Loan Trust 2006-OA1, 775 N.W.2d 168, 174 (Minn. App. 2009) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Jan. 27, 2010).

2014Loan Trust 2006-OA1, 775 N.W.2d 168, 174 (Minn. App. 2009) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Jan. 27, 2010).

2017Appellants may establish a debatably meritorious claim “in an affidavit or by other proof.” Grunke v. Kloskin, 355 N.W.2d 207, 209 (Minn. App. 1984), review 5 denied (Minn. Jan. 2, 1985).

2016“The existence of a meritorious defense may be established in an affidavit or by other proof.” In re Estate of McCue, 449 N.W.2d 509, 512 (Minn. App. 1990) (quotation omitted); see also Charson, 419 N.W. 2d at 491 (stating that “the existence of a meritorious claim must ordinarily be demonstrated by more than conclusory allegations in moving papers”).