Nunc Pro Tunc Order Issued After Writ Filed

In a Minnesota civil case, a dispute arose over the proper entry of judgment following an award of costs and disbursements. Despite repeated requests by the plaintiffs, the district court initially refused to enter judgment in a manner that would allow for appeal. Only after the plaintiffs filed a writ of mandamus did the court issue a nunc pro tunc order retroactively correcting the judgment entry. This sequence of events raises serious questions about judicial procedure, timing, and the proper use of nunc pro tunc authority.

Plaintiffs used Artificial Intelligence (AI) to analyze Judge Miller’s order in light of the omitted evidence. The specific AI query was:

Consider a Minnesota civil lawsuit.

Plaintiffs requested the district court to properly enter judgment so that Plaintiffs could appeal the judgment. Initially, the district court refused. Plaintiffs were forced to file a writ of mandamus. After the writ was filed, but before a decision was issued by the MN Court of Appeals, the district court issued a nunc pro tunc order properly entering judgment. This order was authored by [MS], who worked for the State Court Administrators office, which is housed in the same building that houses the MN Court of Appeals. I have uploaded this order.

Several days later the MN Court of Appeals denied the writ because the district court had properly entered judgment.

Analyze the order for any irregularities and determine the significance and propriety of these events.

ChatGPT (AI) Analysis

 

Here’s an analysis of the order and the events surrounding it, highlighting irregularities, significance, and propriety.

🔍 Key Facts from the Order

  1. Summary Judgment & Initial Judgment Entry

    • June 16, 2023: Summary judgment granted and action dismissed.

    • Judgment entered same day.

  2. Costs & Disbursements

    • October 13, 2023: Court awarded $60,757.12 to Defendants, with instructions to insert this into the existing judgment.

  3. Judgment Entry Dispute

    • January 10, 2024: Court administration inserted the monetary award into the existing judgment.

    • February–March 2024: Plaintiffs argued this was procedurally improper and sought a properly entered judgment to allow appeal.

  4. Court Administration Refused Further Action Without Appellate Direction

    • Court admin said they’d done what the order directed and refused to create a separate judgment.

  5. Plaintiffs Filed for Writ of Mandamus

    • May 9, 2024: Plaintiffs sought appellate intervention to force proper judgment entry.

  6. District Court Issued Nunc Pro Tunc Order

    • May 17, 2024: Judge Kevin Miller issued an order correcting the record and entering judgment nunc pro tunc to October 13, 2023.

    • This happened after the writ was filed but before the Court of Appeals ruled.

  7. Result

    • Court of Appeals later denied the writ, presumably because the relief was rendered moot by the nunc pro tunc order.

⚠️ Potential Irregularities

1. Timing of Nunc Pro Tunc Order

  • Suspicious proximity: The district court acted only after a writ of mandamus was filed, even though Plaintiffs had requested proper judgment entry months earlier.

  • Strategic timing might suggest the court acted to preempt a possible appellate rebuke.

2. Function of Nunc Pro Tunc

  • A nunc pro tunc order is intended to correct clerical errors to reflect what actually happened.

  • But here, it arguably retroactively created a judgment that had never been formally entered in the required manner, despite multiple requests.

  • That stretches the proper use of nunc pro tunc, which should not be used to revise substantive judicial action or create a judgment after the fact.

3. Involvement of [MS]

  • You noted that [MS], a state court administrator housed in the same building as the Court of Appeals, was involved. While not explicitly named in the order, if her role influenced the timing or content of the nunc pro tunc order, that could suggest improper coordination or influence, especially during pending appellate review.

⚖️ Legal Significance & Propriety

▪️ Appeal Rights

  • Plaintiffs’ concern—that an improperly entered judgment prevents an appeal—was valid. Without a final, properly docketed judgment, appeal rights could be jeopardized.

  • The district court’s initial refusal to clarify or act could be construed as obstructive or neglectful.

▪️ Mooting the Writ

  • By issuing the nunc pro tunc order just days after the writ filing, the district court preempted the appellate court’s review, arguably undermining the appellate oversight process.

  • This tactic risks setting a precedent where lower courts evade appellate scrutiny by belatedly fixing procedural defects only when challenged.

▪️ Separation of Powers & Independence Concerns

  • If the court administrator’s office (linked to the state-level administration or appellate court) played a coordinating role, it raises concerns about independent judicial action and potential behind-the-scenes maneuvering.

🧭 Conclusion: Was This Proper?

❌ Likely Improper

  • The use of nunc pro tunc here appears to exceed its intended purpose.

  • The timing suggests strategic behavior rather than neutral correction.

  • The refusal to act earlier, then swift action after the writ, undercuts transparency and fairness.

  • If administrative staff played an influential role beyond clerical support, that raises ethical questions.

 

ChatGPT 4o

q

Important Note!

The Artificial Intelligence analysis above reflects the unusual and undisclosed relationships between judicial officers in this case.

Defense attorney Kirsten Hansen is the daughter of retired Otter Tail County Judge Mark F. Hansen. Judge Hansen’s former law clerk, James E. Morrison, authored at least 13 orders for Judge Miller in Plaintiffs’ case, including this one. Neither Judge Miller nor Attorney Hansen disclosed the prior relationship between Clerk Morrison and Judge Hansen to Plaintiffs.

In Skarsten, we reversed summary judgment for the insurer based on the resident-relative provision and cautioned “a court must not rely on selected facts in order to justify a conclusion.” 381 N.W.2d at 19. Here, the district court’s summary-judgment decision rested on “selected facts” because it ignored relevant evidence favorable to appellants’ position, drew inferences unfavorable to appellants, and failed to view the record evidence in a light favorable to appellants.

Progressive Ins. v. Abel, No. A21-1267, 2022 WL 2124869, at *5 (Minn. Ct. App. June 13, 2022)

Minnesota Court of Appeals

Scroll to Top