Minnesota House Bill HF2653

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/24/25
• Refer: 3/24/25
• Becomes Law: 3/24/25

Caption

Fees and expenses awarded to prevailing party if municipality's position was not substantially justified.

Summary

HF 2653 creates a new Minnesota statute authorizing courts to award attorney fees and other litigation expenses to a prevailing party in a civil action involving a municipality when the municipality’s position was not “substantially justified.” The bill defines key terms such as “municipality,” “fees,” “expenses,” and “substantially justified,” and sets the standard as whether the municipality had a reasonable basis in law and fact based on the totality of the circumstances before and during litigation. Under the bill, a court must award fees and expenses to the prevailing party, other than the municipality, unless special circumstances would make the award unjust. The court may reduce or deny an award if the prevailing party unreasonably prolonged the case. A party seeking fees must apply within 30 days of final judgment and provide an itemized statement supporting the request. The bill also clarifies that it does not limit recovery under other laws and does not apply to tort actions.

Impact

The bill would add a new fee-shifting provision in Minnesota Statutes chapter 465, affecting civil litigation between municipalities and private parties or other litigants. It would expose municipalities to potential liability for the opposing party’s attorney fees and related expenses when the municipality’s litigation position lacks substantial justification, while also preserving existing remedies under other statutes and excluding tort cases from its scope.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears aimed at discouraging unjustified municipal litigation positions and helping prevailing parties recover the cost of litigation. There is no recorded committee discussion or vote history in the provided materials, so no clear support or opposition can be identified from the legislative record included here.

Contention

The main policy tension in the bill is between protecting prevailing parties from the cost of defending against unreasonable municipal positions and preserving municipal discretion to litigate public matters without undue fee exposure. Potential points of contention include the meaning of “substantially justified,” whether mandatory fee awards could chill municipal enforcement or defense of local decisions, and whether the exception for special circumstances and the exclusion of tort actions are sufficiently narrow or broad. No specific legislators, groups, or committee members are identified in the provided record as taking either side.