Attorney Fees in Default Proceedings

(a) A party proceeding by default and seeking an award of attorney fees that has established a basis for the award under applicable law, including parties seeking to enforce a confession of judgment, may obtain approval of the fees administratively without a motion hearing, provided that: (1) the fees requested do not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the principal balance owing as requested in that party's pleadings, up to a maximum of $3,000.00. Such a party may seek a minimum of $250.00; and (2) the requesting party's pleading includes a claim for attorney fees in an amount greater than or equal to the amount sought upon default; and (3) the defaulting party, after default has occurred, has been provided notice of the right to request a hearing under section (c) of this rule, a form for making such a request substantially similar to Form 119.05 as published by the state court administrator, and the affidavit required under Rule 119.02. (b) A party may request a formal hearing and seek fees in excess of the amount described herein if that party provides the court with evidence relevant to the amount of attorneys' fees requested as established by the factors a court considers when determining the reasonableness of the attorneys' fees. (c) A defaulting party may request a hearing and further judicial review of the attorneys' fees requested by completing a "Request for Hearing" provided by the plaintiff substantially similar to Form 119.05 as published by the state court administrator. A party may serve the form, at any time after a default has occurred, provided that the defaulting party is given at least 21 days' notice before the request for judgment is made. A defaulting party must serve the Request for Hearing upon the requesting party or its counsel within 21 days of its receipt. Upon timely receipt of a Request for Hearing the party seeking fees shall request a judicial assignment and have the hearing scheduled. (d) Rule 119.05 does not apply to contested cases, ancillary proceedings (e.g., motions to compel or show cause) or proceedings subsequent to the entry of judgment. (Added effective January 1, 2004; amended effective January 1, 2005; amended effective March 1, 2009; amended effective January 1, 2020.) Advisory Committee Comment - 1997 Amendment This rule is intended to establish a standard procedure for supporting requests for attorney fees. The committee is aware that motions for attorney fees are either not supported by any factual information or are supported with conclusionary, non-specific information that is not sufficient to permit the court to make an appropriate determination of the appropriate amount of fees. This rule is intended to create a standard procedure only; it neither expands nor limits the entitlement to recovery of attorneys' fees in any case. Published by the Revisor of Statutes under Minnesota Statutes, section 3C.08, subdivision 1. 125 GENERAL RULES OF PRACTICE MINNESOTA COURT RULES Where fees are to be determined under the "lodestar" method widely used in the federal courts and adopted in Minnesota in Specialized Tours, Inc. v. Hagen, 392 N.W.2d 520, 542-43 (Minn. 1986), trial courts need to have information to support the reasonableness of the hours claimed to be expended as well as the reasonable hourly rate under the circumstances. This rule is intended to provide a standard set of documentation that allows the majority of fee applications to be considered by the court without requiring further information. The rule specifically acknowledges that cases involving complex issues or serious factual dispute over these issues may require additional documentation. The rule allows the court to require additional materials in any case where appropriate. This rule is not intended to limit the court's discretion, but is intended to encourage streamlined handling of fee applications and to facilitate filing of appropriate support to permit consideration of the issues. This rule also authorizes the court to review the documentation required by the rule in camera. This is often necessary given the sensitive nature of the required fee information and the need to protect the party entitled to attorney fees from having to compromise its attorney's thoughts, mental impressions, or other work product in order to support its fee application. As an alternative to permitting in camera review by the trial judge, the court can permit submission of redacted copies, with privileged material removed from all copies. The amendment in 1997, adding the exceptions to the requirements of the rule for certain probate and trust proceedings, is designed to obviate procedures that serve no purpose for the courts and unduly burden the parties. Probate and trust matters have separate statutes and case law relating to attorney fees. See Minnesota Statutes, sections 524.3-721 and 525.515; In re Great Northern Iron Ore Properties, 311 N.W.2d 488 (Minn. 1981) and In re Living Trust Created by Atwood, 227 Minn. 495, 35 N.W.2d 736 (1949). In probate and trust matters, if no interested party objects to the attorney fees, there is ordinarily no reason for the court to require the detail specified in Rule 119. In contested matters, however, such detail may be appropriate to enable the court to resolve the matter under the standards of applicable probate and trust law. The court may protect the sensitive and confidential information that may be contained in attorney time records by entering an appropriate order in a particular case. Similarly, the exemption of these cases from the requirements of the rule does not prevent the court from requiring any of the fee application documentation in a particular matter. (amended 1997; 1998; 2005.) Advisory Committee Comment - 2003 Amendment