(dissenting)
I respectfully dissent. I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that by filing the demand for removal, WCF made an unrepresented appearance in district court.
To remove a case from conciliation court to district court, a party must do four things: serve on the opposing party or the opposing party’s lawyer a demand for removal of the cause to district court; file the original demand for removal with proof *266of service; file an affidavit stating that the removal is made in good faith; and pay the removal fee, along with any jury trial fees that' may apply. Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 521(b). When these four things have been done, .the removal is perfected and the case is transferred to district court:
(d) Removal Perfected; Vacating Judgment; Transmitting File. When all removal papers have been filed properly and all requisite fees paid as provided under Rule 521(b), the removal is perfected, and the court shall issue an order vacating the order for judgment in conciliation court, and the whole contents of the conciliation court file of the cause shall be filed in district court.
Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 521(d).
This also means, however, that until these four things are done, and the removal is perfected, the case remains in conciliation court. Because a party files its demand for removal before the removal is perfected and, therefore, before the case is transferred to district court, filing the demand for removal cannot be an appearance in district court. Consequently, a corporation need not have counsel to file a demand to remove a case from conciliation court to district court.
Because filing its demand for removal was not an improper appearance in district court, WCF’s demand was timely and its removal was perfected. I would therefore reverse the district court’s decision that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over WCF’s lawsuit.