Solvay Hospice House, Respondent, vs. Mark R. Hollis, Appellant, a252127

Solvay Hospice House evicted Mark R. Hollis after he was no longer Medicare-eligible for hospice care and allegedly failed to meet financial obligations. 1
Hollis represented himself at the eviction trial after repeated requests for more time to find counsel were denied. 2
The district court entered eviction judgment for Solvay on August 5, 2025. 3
Hollis moved to vacate the judgment under section 504B.345, subdivision 3, and sought permission to move for reconsideration. 4
The district court denied both requests, finding the vacate motion untimely and no compelling circumstances for reconsideration. 5
On appeal, Solvay sought to strike portions of Hollis's brief and addendum and postjudgment district-court filings. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Hollis's motion to vacate the eviction judgment timely and appealable? 7	Hollis said section 504B.345 and rule 60.02 made the motion timely.	Solvay argued the motion was an improper, time-barred attack on the judgment.	Timely, but it could not be used to correct judicial error; denial affirmed. 8
Could Hollis use rule 60.02 to challenge alleged trial and legal errors? 9	Hollis claimed the court erred on accommodation, trial rulings, and findings.	Solvay said those claims were judicial-error arguments, not rule 60.02 grounds.	No; rule 60.02 does not permit relief for judicial error. 10
Was Hollis's request for permission to move for reconsideration properly denied? 11	Hollis claimed compelling circumstances justified reconsideration.	Solvay argued the denial was unappealable and Hollis violated rule 115.11.	The denial was not properly appealable and, alternatively, was not an abuse of discretion. 12
Should Solvay's motion to strike parts of Hollis's filings be granted? 13	Hollis argued the challenged materials were part of the record or relevant on appeal.	Solvay argued the materials were outside the scope of review and outside the record.	No; Solvay failed to show a basis to strike them. 14

In re Welfare of Child of M.L.A., 730 N.W.2d 54 (Minn. App. 2007) (motion to vacate review is generally for abuse of discretion 15)
In re Est. of Figliuzzi, 979 N.W.2d 225 (Minn. 2022) (statutes and procedural rules are reviewed de novo 16)
Dominium Mgmt. Servs. LLC v. Lee, 924 N.W.2d 925 (Minn. App. 2019) (eviction proceedings are summary in nature and the proper appeal is from the final judgment 17)
Tonkaway Ltd. P'ship v. McLain, 433 N.W.2d 443 (Minn. App. 1988) (in unlawful-detainer actions, the exclusive mode of appeal is from the judgment 18)
Carter v. Anderson, 554 N.W.2d 110 (Minn. App. 1996) (rule 60.02 balances finality with limited relief and does not correct judicial error 19)
Anderson v. Anderson, 179 N.W.2d 718 (Minn. 1970) (rule 60.02 relief is unavailable to correct judicial error 20)
Williams v. Nat'l Football League, 794 N.W.2d 391 (Minn. App. 2011) (appellate courts may affirm on any ground supported by the record 21)
Baker v. Amtrak Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 588 N.W.2d 749 (Minn. App. 1999) (denial of a reconsideration request is not independently appealable 22)
State v. Allwine, 963 N.W.2d 178 (Minn. 2021) (denial of reconsideration requests is reviewed for abuse of discretion 23)
Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. 1988) (appellate courts may not base decisions on matters outside the record 24)