Did the district court err in dismissing the budget appeal for lack of personal jurisdiction?
ANALYSIS I. Appellant argues that neither the language nor the purpose of Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.02 prohibits the sheriff from personally serving process in a budget appeal. Whether service of process is proper is a question of law reviewed de novo. Amdahl v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 484 N.W.2d 811, 814 (Minn. App. 1992), review denied (Minn. July 16, 1992). Interpretation of the rules of civil procedure is also a question of law, which this court reviews de novo. Barrera v. Muir, 553 N.W.2d 104, 108 (Minn. App. 1996), review denied (Minn. Oct. 29, 1996). The initiation of an action in a Minnesota court requires a plaintiff to follow the procedures in the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure. Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.01. Generally, a party is prohibited from making personal service. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.02, 4.03. Specifically, Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.02 provides: [T]he sheriff or any other person not less than 18 years of age and not a party to the action, may make service of a summons or other process. A
