Legal Opinion
Howard v. Frondell
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided May 20, 1986No. C1-86-67PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
PARKER, Judge.
This appeal is from a default judgment entered against appellants Thomas Fron-dell and David Ekelund and from an order denying their motion to vacate that judgment. Appellants contend the judgment should be vacated because they demonstrated excusable neglect and because they did not receive notice of respondent’s application for default judgment. We agree with the trial court that appellants’ “delays in answering were not excusable” and affirm.
FACTS
Respondent Charles Howard brought this action against the owners of Anderson & Associates, a partnership comprised of Alan J.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Thayer v. American Financial Advisers, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- Finden v. KlaasSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
- Kosloski v. JonesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
- Coller v. Guardian Angels Roman Catholic Church of ChaskaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- Whipple v. MahlerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1943
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Sand v. School Service Employees Union, Local 284Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
- Batterman v. Red Lion Hotels, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2001
- Batterman v. Red Lion Hotels, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2001
- Lund v. Pan American MacHines SalesCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
- Valley View, Inc. v. SchutteCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.