Harper & Peterson, P.L.L.C. v. John W. Seckinger, A16-1251

Background

Seckinger retained Harper & Peterson after a 2005 motorcycle injury and signed a retainer authorizing deduction of fees and costs from recovery.
Harper & Peterson advanced litigation costs totaling $79,203.99; Seckinger paid $30,000 toward costs and the firm advanced the remaining $49,203.99.
The underlying personal-injury case settled confidentially in 2012; Seckinger later demanded return of his $30,000; the firm kept it in trust as disputed fees.
Harper & Peterson sued for declaratory relief, served Seckinger with the summons and complaint in August 2015, and moved for declaratory judgment in March 2016.
Seckinger served his answer on the firm but did not file it in district court; attempted responses to the motion were rejected for procedural defects and he did not appear at the hearing.
The district court granted declaratory judgment for Harper & Peterson; Seckinger appealed arguing due process, lack of jurisdiction, and that unfiled materials created genuine factual disputes.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Seckinger was denied procedural due process (notice/opportunity to be heard)	He lacked "plain, unambiguous" notice of filing requirements and thus was denied process	He received the summons, complaint, and motion notice; failed to file or appear despite rules being publicly available	No due-process violation; Seckinger had notice and opportunity but failed to comply with filing rules
Whether pro se status excuses compliance with filing rules	Pro se litigant argued lack of court guidance should excuse procedural defects	Court and Harper & Peterson relied on published rules; pro se litigants are held to same standards as attorneys	Pro se status does not excuse noncompliance with filing rules
Whether district court had jurisdiction to hear the declaratory-judgment motion (prematurity / default treatment)	Motion should have been treated as default-judgment because answer wasn’t filed in court	Answer was timely served; declaratory-judgment motion was filed well after 20-day period, so it was not premature	Court had jurisdiction; motion was timely and not a default-judgment situation
Whether failure to file Seckinger’s unfiled answer/responses created genuine issues of material fact precluding relief	Seckinger contended the unfiled documents showed disputed facts precluding declaratory judgment	Court limited review to the district-court record; unfiled documents are not part of record and cannot be considered	Unfiled documents cannot be considered on appeal; record showed the retainer was unambiguous and no material factual dispute existed

Key Cases Cited

Thole v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 831 N.W.2d 17 (Minn. App. 2013) (standard of review for due-process challenges)
Comm’r of Nat. Res. v. Nicollet Cty. Pub. Water/Wetlands Hearings Unit, 633 N.W.2d 25 (Minn. App. 2001) (notice requirement varies with circumstances)
Peterson v. W. Davis & Sons, 11 N.W.2d 800 (Minn. 1943) (purpose of summons is to give notice a proceeding has been instituted)
Black v. Rimmer, 700 N.W.2d 521 (Minn. App. 2005) (pro se litigants held to same standards as attorneys)
Heinsch v. Lot 27, Block 1 For’s Beach, 399 N.W.2d 107 (Minn. App. 1987) (unfamiliarity with rules is not good cause to excuse untimely action)
Tri-State Ins. Co. of Minn. v. Bontjes, 488 N.W.2d 845 (Minn. App. 1992) (jurisdictional limits on declaratory-judgment motions and timing)
Doe v. Legacy Broad. of Minn., Inc., 504 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. App. 1993) (default judgment appropriate only if party fails to plead or otherwise defend)
Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. 1988) (appellate review confined to district-court record)
Dahlin v. Kroening, 796 N.W.2d 503 (Minn. 2011) (standard on appeal from summary judgment)
Dorsey & Whitney, LLP v. Grossman, 749 N.W.2d 409 (Minn. App. 2008) (construction and effect of unambiguous contracts are questions of law)
Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co., 666 N.W.2d 339 (Minn. 2003) (definition of contractual ambiguity)