time for making post-trial motions.” Rieman v. Joubert, 376 N.W.2d 681, 684 (Minn.1985). Service of the notice of the filing of the district court’s order “is essentially a timing mechanism.” Id. Because the time limitation for bringing posttrial motions under rule 59.03 commences upon service of the notice of filing of the district court’s order, the failure to serve such notice means that the other party has an indefinite time to bring a motion. Id.; 2 David F. Herr & Roger S. Haydock, Minnesota Practice § 59.25 (5th ed.2011). Rule 59.03, which is concerned with timing limitations after service of notice of filing, does not prohibit a party from bringing posttrial motions before service of the notice of filing. See, e.g., Krech v. Comm’r of Revenue, 557 N.W.2d 335, 343 (Minn.1997) (<HOLDING>). We conclude that the association’s motion for
holding appeal from order denying posttrial motions was proper since prothonotary entered judgment prior to appellate disposition holding that under rule 5903 posttrial motions brought before either party served notice of filing of the courts order were timely holding that issues are not waived for failing to file posttrial motions from a remand proceeding where no evidence was presented because no posttrial motions were required under those circumstances holding that successive posttrial motions do not toll the time for appeal holding argument based on economic loss rule waived when raised for first time in posttrial motions