§
Subdivision 1.Entry and docketing; survival of judgment.
Except as provided in section 548.091, every judgment requiring the payment of money shall be entered by the court administrator when ordered by the court and will be docketed by the court administrator upon the filing of an affidavit as provided in subdivision 2. Upon a transcript of the docket being filed with the court administrator in any other county, the court administrator shall also docket it. From the time of docketing the judgment is a lien, in the amount unpaid, upon all real property in the county then or thereafter owned by the judgment debtor, but it is not a lien upon registered land unless it is also recorded pursuant to sections 508.63 and 508A.63. The judgment survives, and the lien continues, for ten years after its entry. Child support judgments may be renewed pursuant to section 548.091.
§
Subd. 2.Judgment creditor's affidavit.
No judgment, except for taxes, shall be docketed until the judgment creditor, or the creditor's agent or attorney, has filed with the court administrator an affidavit, stating the full name, occupation, place of residence, and post office address of the judgment debtor, to the best of affiant's information and belief. If the residence is within an incorporated place having more than 5,000 inhabitants, the street number of both the judgment debtor's place of residence and place of business, if the debtor has one, shall be stated.
§
Subd. 3.Violations by court administrator.
If the court administrator violates this provision, neither the judgment nor the docketing is invalid, but the court administrator shall be liable to a person damaged by the violation in the sum of $5.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
45
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1944–2026 · leading case:
Dahlin v. Kroening, 796 N.W.2d 503 (Minn. 2011).
Dahlin v. Kroening, 796 N.W.2d 503 (Minn. 2011).
· cites it 12× “Minn.Stat. § 548.09, subd. 1 (2010); see also In re Sitarz, 150 B.”
Dahlin v. Kroening, 784 N.W.2d 406 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 12× “See Minn.Stat. § 548.09, subd. 1 (providing that judgments survive for ten years and specifying that "[c]hild support judgments may be renewed pursuant to section 548.”
In Re the Marriage of Opp, 516 N.W.2d 193 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 18× “He argues that Minn.Stat. §§ 548.09 and 548.091 (1992) prevent docketing of the judgment more than ten years after the court ordered judgment.”
All Finish Concrete, Inc. v. Erickson, 899 N.W.2d 557 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 7× “Minn. Stat. § 548.09 , subd. 1 (2016). Further, “no action shall be maintained upon a judgment or decree of a court of the United States, or of any state or territory thereof, unless begun within ten years after the entry of such judgment.”
Kipp v. Sweno, 683 N.W.2d 259 (Minn. 2004).
· cites it 4× “See Minn.Stat. § 548.09, subd. (1) (2002); Steele v.”
Nussbaumer v. Fetrow, 556 N.W.2d 595 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 4× “The judgment hen creditors assert that, on the day of docketing, they perfected hens against the subject property by virtue of Minn.Stat. § 548.09, subd. 1 (1996). Walter and Eva Nussbaumer (vendees) purchased the property from DeWitt in December 1994 and recorded the deed in…”
Marriage of Oldewurtel v. Redding, 421 N.W.2d 722 (Minn. 1988).
· cites it 4× “Section 548.09 (1986), then Oldewurtel would have obtained a lien at least against the farm.”
Hentges v. P.H. Feely & Son, Inc., 436 N.W.2d 488 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 4× “]” Minn.Stat. § 548.09, subd. 1 (1982). Rutt was the record owner of property located in Scott County, Minnesota at the time the judgments were docketed.”
Bakken v. Helgeson, 785 N.W.2d 791 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 6× “Respondents moved for summary judgment, arguing that appellant’s claim was barred by the 10-year statute of limitations for enforcing a judgment or judgment lien contained in Minn.”
In Re Hahn, 60 B.R. 69 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1985).
· cites it 2× “§ 548.09 subd. 1. 2. That the liens so obtained by First National and the Kims are “judicial liens” within the meaning of 11 U.”
In Re Sitarz, 150 B.R. 710 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1993).
· cites it 2× “Given the massive disruption he actually caused, he did nothing of the sort.”
In re the Est. of Pawlik, 845 N.W.2d 249 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “See Minn. Stat. § 548.09 , subd. 1 (2012) (providing that “[f]rom the time of docketing the judgment is a lien, in the amount unpaid, upon all real property in the county then or thereafter owned by the judgment debt- or, but it is not a lien upon registered land *254 unless it…”
— Minn. Stat. § 548.09(1) — 1 case
In re Mus, 598 B.R. 623 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2019).
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.