Opinion
A22-1751
07-14-2023
Reunion Student Loan Finance Corporation, a South Dakota corporation, Respondent, v. Shawn Davison, Appellant.
Ramsey County District Court File No. 62-CV-22-2856
Considered and decided by Slieter, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Kirk, Judge. [*]
ORDER OPINION
Michael Kirk Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In December 2019, respondent Reunion Student Loan Finance Corporation (Reunion) served appellant Shawn Davison with a summons and complaint asserting a breach-of-contract claim based on Davison's failure to repay his student loans. In December 2020, Davison's attorney signed a written stipulation to extend the filing period of the complaint under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 5.04(a). This rule provides that an action that is not filed within one year of commencement is deemed dismissed "unless the parties within that year sign a stipulation to extend the filing period." Minn. R. Civ. P. 5.04(a). Reunion ultimately filed the summons and complaint with the district court in May 2022.
2. Reunion then moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion. The district court determined it was undisputed that the parties entered into a valid and enforceable contract, and that Davison breached the contract by failing to pay the amount owed to Reunion. The district court subsequently entered judgment, from which Davison now appeals.
3. On appeal from summary judgment, we review de novo whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law. Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., 898 N.W.2d 623, 628 (Minn. 2017). Summary judgment is warranted "when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that either party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn. 1993) (citing Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03). We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted. STAR Centers, Inc. v. Faegre &Benson, L.L.P., 644 N.W.2d 72, 76-77 (Minn. 2002). However, to avoid summary judgment, the nonmoving party must present sufficient evidence "to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions" and create more than "a metaphysical doubt as to the factual issue." DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60, 71 (Minn. 1997).
4. Davison does not challenge any of the issues addressed in the district court's summary-judgment order, nor does he challenge the validity of the debt. Instead, Davison argues for the first time on appeal that (1) his attorney committed misconduct by signing the stipulation to extend the filing period, and (2) he has newly discovered evidence. Davison relies on Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02, which allows the district court-but not the appellate court-to relieve a party from a final judgment or order under certain circumstances. Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02.
5. Davison did not present these issues to the district court. It is well established that a party may not raise an issue or argument for the first time on appeal. Leppink v. Water Gremlin Co., 944 N.W.2d 493, 501 (Minn.App. 2020) (citing Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988)). Our review is limited to the arguments and matters presented to and considered by the district court. Thiele, 425 N.W.2d at 582 (stating an appellate court will consider only those matters and theories presented to and considered by the district court). Because Davison did not raise these issues at the district court, those arguments are not properly before this court, and we will not consider them for the first time on appeal. See Carter v. Anderson, 554 N.W.2d 110, 113 (Minn.App. 1996) (refusing to consider a Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 argument for the first time on appeal), rev. denied (Minn. Dec. 23, 1996). We therefore consider these arguments forfeited.
6. We note that this order does not preclude Davison from seeking rule 60.02 relief in district court. A motion under rule 60.02(a)-(c) must be made "not more than one year after the judgement . . . was entered." Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02. The district court entered judgment in October 2022. The deadline to bring a motion under rule 60.02 is one year, or by October 2023. Upon dismissal of this appeal, Davison may pursue timely relief under rule 60.02 at the district court level if he chooses to do so.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's judgment is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
[*] Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.