Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 518.13 (2026)

Failure To Answer; Findings; Hearing

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Default.

If the respondent does not appear after service duly made and proved, the court may hear and determine the proceeding as a default matter.

Subd. 2.Dispute over irretrievable breakdown.

If one of the parties has denied under oath or affirmation that the marriage is irretrievably broken, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including the circumstances that gave rise to the commencement of the proceeding and the prospect of reconciliation, and shall make a finding whether the marriage is irretrievably broken.

A finding of irretrievable breakdown under this subdivision is a determination that there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation. The finding must be supported by evidence that (i) the parties have lived separate and apart for a period of not less than 180 days immediately preceding the commencement of the proceeding, or (ii) there is serious marital discord adversely affecting the attitude of one or both of the parties toward the marriage.

Subd. 3.Agreement over irretrievable breakdown.

If both parties by petition or otherwise have stated under oath or affirmation that the marriage is irretrievably broken, or one of the parties has so stated and the other has not denied it, the court, after hearing, shall make a finding that the marriage is irretrievably broken.

Subd. 4.Referee; open court.

The court or judge, upon application, may refer the proceeding to a referee to take and report the evidence therein. Hearings for dissolution of marriage shall be heard in open court or before a referee appointed by the court to receive the testimony of the witnesses, or depositions taken as in other equitable actions. However, the court may in its discretion close the hearing.

Subd. 5.Approval without hearing.

Proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, order for judgment, and judgment and decree must be submitted to the court for approval and filing without a final hearing in the following situations:

(1) if there are no minor children of the marriage, and (i) the parties have entered into a written stipulation, or (ii) the respondent has not appeared after service duly made and proved by affidavit and at least 20 days have elapsed since the time for answering under section 518.12 expired; or

(2) if there are minor children of the marriage, the parties have signed and acknowledged a stipulation, and all parties are represented by counsel.

Notwithstanding clause (1) or (2), the court shall schedule the matter for hearing in any case where the proposed judgment and decree does not appear to be in the best interests of the minor children or is contrary to the interests of justice.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2024 · leading case: In re the Marriage of Hollander v. Hollander, 359 N.W.2d 55 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In re the Marriage of Hollander v. Hollander, 359 N.W.2d 55 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 6× “Minn.Stat. § 518.13, subds. 2, 3 (1982). John Hollander argues that the court did not consider his mental condition as one of the relevant factors and that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the court’s finding of an irretrievable breakdown.”

Marriage of Richter v. Richter, 625 N.W.2d 490 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “Minn. Stat. § 518.13 , subd. 2 (2000). “Irretrievable breakdown” occurs when “there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation.”

In re the Marriage of: Robert Thomas Nord, A v. Katherine Elizabeth Bowers, B, ... (Minn. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 4× “” Minn. Stat. § 518.13 , subd. 5. Wife asserts that the stipulated J&D “is contrary to the interest[s] of justice” because it was executed while wife was suffering from mental illness and because it is not fair and equitable.”

In re the Marriage of: Dawn Marie Mondus Loger v. Cory Scott Loger (Minn. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 5× “” Minn. Stat. § 518.13 , subd. 1. Appellant was served with the summons and petition on March 19, 2012, and was therefore required to answer by April 18, 2012.”

In re the Marriage of: Dontrell Valerie Thornton v. Herbert Thornton, Jr. (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “The district court did not err by proceeding to default under Minn. Stat. § 518.13 , subd. 1 (2014). We conclude that husband lacked a reasonable excuse.”

Heidi Jo Olson v. Mark Douglas Olson (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “1984); see Minn. Stat. § 518.13 , subd. 2 (2014). Here, evidence showed that the parties had lived apart for about nine years at the time of trial, and respondent explicitly stated her view that there has been an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.”

In re the Marriage of: Jennifer Dawn Nyakundi v. Gilbert Ogamba Nyakundi (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “” Minn. Stat. § 518.13 , subd. 1 (2014). Whether to grant a default judgment is within the district court’s discretion.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.