Some states have a procedural tool—known as a suit on an account, a suit for an account, or a suit on a sworn account—that limits the evidence and pleading requirements for a creditor to establish its right to recovery on certain types of accounts in a lawsuit to collect a debt. These procedural tools are designed to reduce the cost of a creditor’s recovery of a debt on such accounts, and usually apply to transactions in which there is a sale upon one side and a purchase upon the other, and title to personal property passes from one to the other, creating a debtor-creditor relationship by a general course of dealing.

A sworn account is not an independent cause of action or basis for recovery, but requires the defendant to file a sworn denial of the account to avoid having the court grant judgment against the defendant early in the litigation process (summary judgment).

In Minnesota, the concept of a suit on a sworn account is not explicitly recognized as it is in some other states. Instead, creditors seeking to recover debts typically must follow the standard civil litigation process, which involves filing a complaint, serving the defendant, and proving their case through the presentation of evidence. Minnesota does not have a specific statute or procedural rule that simplifies the process for creditors by allowing them to file a suit on a sworn account that would require a sworn denial to avoid summary judgment. Creditors must prove the existence of the debt, the debtor's obligation, and the amount due. If a creditor has a written contract or agreement, they may be able to move for summary judgment if there is no genuine dispute of material fact. However, this is part of the general civil litigation process and not a unique procedural tool like a suit on a sworn account.