Kaltved et al v. Wise et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Douglas Kaltveld & Jenna Kaltveld,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Brad Wise, et al.,
Defendants.
Case. No. 25-CV-4755 (NEB/JFD)
ORDER
This case has been referred to the undersigned for resolution of pretrial matters
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.1. This matter is
before the Court on Plaintiffs Douglas and Jenna Kaltveld’s (the “Kaltvelds”) Motion to
Deem Service Acceptable on Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) and
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”).1 (Dkt. No. 36.)
The Kaltvelds tried to effect personal service on registered agents for MERS on
January 8, 2026, but that attempt was unsuccessful. (See Motion 5, Dkt. No. 36.) There is
nothing in the record showing that the Kaltvelds attempted to effect personal service on
Fannie Mae. (See Sundeen Affidavit, Motion 3, Dkt. No. 36 (“Fannie Mae” crossed out).)
After personal service on MERS failed, the Kaltvelds sent the summons and complaint to
both MERS and Fannie Mae via United States Postal Service Certified Mail with a return
1 The motion, when filed, also sought the same relief as to Defendant Cenlar FSB. Cenlar
FSB has since engaged with this lawsuit through counsel, so the Court makes no
determination on the issue as to it. If Cenlar FSB objects to the method by which it was
served, the Court trusts that its counsel will timely bring that objection to the Court’s
attention via motion.
CASE 0:25-cv-04755-NEB-JFD Doc. 66 Filed 03/05/26 Page 1 of 6

2
receipt requested. (See Kaltveld Affidavits, Motion 8–9, 12–13, Dkt. No. 36.) Both
mailings were received and signed for at the location they were sent—for Fannie Mae in
Plano, Texas, and for MERS in Omaha, Nebraska. (See id.)
The Kaltvelds ask the Court to accept their attempts to serve this lawsuit on Fannie
Mae and MERS via mail as adequate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), which requires an action
to be dismissed without prejudice if it has not been appropriately served on defendants
within 90 days of the filing of the complaint, unless the plaintiff shows good cause for the
failure to serve the complaint within that time period. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The Court
interprets this motion as one requesting more time to adequately serve Fannie Mae and
MERS.2 This request requires the Court two answer two questions. First, have Fannie Mae
and MERS been served with process at all? Second, if not, have the Kaltvelds shown good
cause for their failure to do so? The Court finds that these two defendants have not been
properly served under the applicable state and federal procedural rules but will give the
Kaltvelds additional time to cure their failure to do so, considering their status as pro se
parties and the complexity of the procedural issues at play.
The short answer is that Fannie Mae and MERS have not been properly served with
process in this case. Service of process and the process by which that service is executed
in federal court relies on both state and federal procedural law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h) states
that a corporation must be served either in accordance with Rule 4(e)(1) for serving an
2 Rule 4(m) does not allow the court to “deem service acceptable.” If the Kaltvelds are
asking the Court to waive the service requirement for these defendants, the Court does not
have the authority to do so.
CASE 0:25-cv-04755-NEB-JFD Doc. 66 Filed 03/05/26 Page 2 of 6

3
individual or by personally delivering a copy of the complaint to an officer or agent of the
corporation. MERS was not personally served, and personal service on Fannie Mae was
not even attempted. (See Sundeen Affidavit, Motion 3, Dkt. No. 36 (“Fannie Mae” crossed
out).) Looking to Rule 4(e)(1), the Kaltvelds could have effectuated service on these
defendants by following state law for service in the state where the district court is located
(Minnesota) or where service is made (Texas for Fannie Mae and Nebraska for MERS).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1).
Rule 4 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure generally outlines how service is
made in Minnesota. See generally Minn. R. Civ. P. 4. Specifically, Rule 4.03 governs
“personal service” that occurs “within the state.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.03. Under that rule, a
domestic or foreign corporation may be served within the state “by delivering a copy to an
officer or managing agent, or to any other agent ... designated by statute to receive service
of summons.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.03(c). Personal service occurs when a person physically
hands the documents to be served to the person being served. An alternative to Rule 4.03
personal service is substitute service, which “is a substitute for service on the defendant,”
and under the law, “is just as good as personal service.” Living Word Christian Ctr. v.
Church Mut. Ins. Co., No. 21-CV-1976 (SRN/TNL), 2022 WL 1228229, at *3 (D. Minn.
Apr. 26, 2022). Substitute service is often provided for via statute, passed by the state
legislature, usually to help parties avoid the inconvenience of personal service. See, e.g.,
Minn. Stat. § 45.028, subd. 2 (allowing for service of process through the Minnesota
Commissioner of Commerce); § 144E.19(c), subd. 3(c) (allowing for service via mail of
suspension orders for ambulance service licensees).
CASE 0:25-cv-04755-NEB-JFD Doc. 66 Filed 03/05/26 Page 3 of 6

4
However, sending 	process by certified mail constitutes neither 	personal nor
substitute service under Minnesota law. See id. (citing Melillo v. Heitland, 880 N.W.2d
862, 863 (Minn. 2016)). There is no evidence that either defendant was served “within the
state” of Minnesota, so personal service was not made on these defendants under
Minnesota law. Likewise, the Kaltvelds did not properly effectuate substitute service on
Fannie Mae or MERS under Minnesota law, because service by certified mail is not
recognized as a valid form of substitute service under Minnesota law.
Texas law does permit the use of certified mail, with return receipt requested, to
effectuate service of process. Tex. R. Civ. P 106(a)(2). “But it still matters who serves the
defendant by mail, as neither Rule 4 nor Texas's rules allow a party to serve a defendant.”
Sharma v. City of Dallas, No. 3:24-CV-1310-D-BN, 2026 WL 183777, at *2 (N.D. Tex.
Jan. 23, 2026) (citing Tex. R. Civ. P. 103). Here, Fannie Mae was served in Texas via
certified mail with return receipt requested, but the Kaltvelds explicitly state that Ms.
Kaltveld herself executed the service. (Kaltveld Affidavit, Motion 8, Dkt. No. 36 (“I served
a true and correct copy of [the relevant documents] upon Federal National Mortgage
Association (Fannie Mae) by certified mail, return receipt requested, to 5600 Granite
Parkway, Plano, TX 75024.”) (emphasis added)). Accordingly, Fannie Mae was not
adequately served in Texas.
Finally, Nebraska law also allows that “[a] corporation may be served by …
certified mail, or designated delivery service upon any officer, director, … [or agent], …,
or by certified mail or designated delivery service to the corporation's registered office.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-509.01. Unlike Texas however, Nebraska does allow plaintiffs
CASE 0:25-cv-04755-NEB-JFD Doc. 66 Filed 03/05/26 Page 4 of 6

5
themselves to effectuate service, when that service is made by certified mail. See Neb. Rev.
Stat. § 25-506-01(2). This seemingly places Nebraska law in direct conflict with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which state that a party may not serve a summons or
complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). Here, the Court concludes that the two are reconcilable.
Rule 4(c) dictates who may effectuate service, and Rule 4(e) dictates how that service is
effectuated (by someone who may effectuate service under Rule 4(c)). This means that a
person wishing to effectuate service must make sure they are a person who can make
service under the requirements of Rule 4(c) before they can determine how to do so under
Rule 4(e). As with Fannie Mae, Ms. Kaltveld explicitly stated that she executed the service
upon MERS. (Kaltveld Affidavit, Motion 12, Dkt. No. 36 (“I served a true and correct copy
of [the relevant documents] upon Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc. (MERS)
by certified mail, return receipt requested, to 11819 Miami St. Suite 100, Omaha, NE
68164.”) (emphasis added)). Rule 4(c) does not allow a party to serve a summons on a
defendant, so even though certified mail service by a plaintiff would be allowed under
Nebraska procedural law adopted by Rule 4(e), MERS was not adequately served in
Nebraska.
Even for trained lawyers, service can be a complex issue, especially when it involves
the interaction of federal law with the laws of several states. Here, the Court finds that good
cause exists to provide the Kaltvelds with a short extension of 14 days from the date of this
order to properly serve Fannie Mae and MERS, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The Kaltvelds
are reminded that, although pro se filings are construed liberally by the courts, (Erickson
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)), they are required to follow the same rules as are
CASE 0:25-cv-04755-NEB-JFD Doc. 66 Filed 03/05/26 Page 5 of 6

6
followed by parties who come to court represented by counsel, including the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and the District of Minnesota’s Local Rules.3 The Kaltvelds would
benefit greatly from legal representation in this case, and if they contact the Court and
request it, the Court will provide them with a referral to the Federal Bar Association’s Pro
Se Project, which may be able to help them find representation at little to no cost.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, the
Court ORDERS that the Kaltvelds’ Motion (Dkt. No. 36) is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part. The Kaltvelds must properly serve Fannie Mae and MERS within 14
days of the date of this order.
Date: March 5, 2026 	s/ John F. Docherty
JOHN F. DOCHERTY
United States Magistrate Judge
3 These rules and other resources can be found on the District Court’s website at
https://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/rules-and-resources.
CASE 0:25-cv-04755-NEB-JFD Doc. 66 Filed 03/05/26 Page 6 of 6