Haynes v. Jackson

• Decision Date: 24 January 2000
• Citation: 744 A.2d 1050,2000 ME 11
• Parties: Sean A.R. HAYNES, Personal Representative of the Estate of Bruce Jagoe v. Michael JACKSON.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

744 A.2d 1050

2000 ME 11

Sean A.R. HAYNES, Personal Representative of the Estate of Bruce Jagoe v. Michael JACKSON.¹

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Submitted on Briefs November 30, 1999.

Decided January 24, 2000.

Francis M. Jackson, Jackson & MacNichol, Portland, for plaintiff.

Stacey Jackson, Limington, for defendant.

Before WATHEN, C.J., and CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, SAUFLEY, and ALEXANDER, JJ.

CLIFFORD, J.

[¶ 1] This is an appeal from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Delahanty, J.) in favor of Sean A.R. Haynes as personal representative of the estate of Bruce Jagoe and against Michael Jackson. The court rescinded a deed that Jackson had obtained from Jagoe and declared the deed "null and void ab initio" thereby vesting ownership of the property in Haynes in his capacity as Jagoe's personal representative. Jackson argues that the court erred in entering a summary judgment and in denying a motion to vacate the judgment. Because the motion to vacate the orders, the notice of appeal, and a supporting brief in this appeal, were filed by Michael Jackson's wife, Stacey Jackson, who is not an attorney and is not permitted to engage in the practice of law, we grant Haynes's motion to dismiss the appeal. [¶ 2] In October of 1997, Haynes, in his capacity as personal representative of the estate of Bruce Jagoe, filed a complaint in the Superior Court alleging that Michael Jackson had breached the terms of a land sale contract between Jackson and Jagoe.² Count I alleged that before the contract had been completed, Jackson obtained the deed from Jagoe for a sum that was less than the sum enumerated in the contract. Haynes sought compensatory damages for the breach. Count II sought rescission of the deed given by Jagoe to Michael Jackson, alleging that Jackson had unduly influenced Jagoe into conveying the property at a time when Jagoe was "emotionally distraught from the recent death of his wife, was suffering from serious drug problems and was not competent."

[¶ 3] Acting pro se, Jackson filed his answer to the complaint in December of 1997. He denied the allegations and asserted that the deed he obtained from Jagoe was valid. In November of 1998, Haynes filed a motion for a partial summary judgment on his breach of contract claim and Jackson's emotional distress and fraud counterclaims. The motion included a statement of material facts that was supported by appropriate record references. Jackson did not respond to the motion.

[¶ 4] On January 26, 1999, the Superior Court mailed Jackson a notice informing him that a trial management conference would be held on February 17, 1999, and that motions to continue could be filed no later than February 10. On January 29, the court issued an order regarding Haynes's failure to file a report of conference of counsel that was due in November of 1998. The court assessed sanctions against Haynes and ordered him to complete the report within ten days. The court also invited Haynes to file a motion for a default judgment if Jackson refused to cooperate in preparing the report.

[¶ 5] Haynes did file a motion for default judgment on February 8, 1999, asserting that Jackson had "never responded by phone or by mail" to any inquiries and that Haynes had "no effective way to enlist [Jackson's] cooperation in preparing a report of conference of counsel." Haynes requested that the court enter a default judgment and grant his unopposed motion for a partial summary judgment. Jackson did not respond to the motion for default.

[¶ 6] On February 17, Stacey Jackson, acting under a power of attorney granted to her by Michael, filed a motion for postponement, asserting that Michael had been diagnosed with kidney cancer in May of 1998 and that he was unable to respond to the claim because his cancer treatment left him confused, forgetful, and frequently ill. Despite being in the courthouse on February 17 to file her motion, Stacey did not attend the trial management conference that was scheduled for that day. On February 18, the court granted Haynes's motion for a partial summary judgment based on Jackson's failure to respond to the motion. See M.R. Civ. P. 7(c). On February 19, the court granted a default judgment in favor of Haynes on all claims and counterclaims "[b]ecause [Jackson] has failed to respond pursuant to [the] appropriate rules."

[¶ 7] The court allowed Haynes to select the claim under which relief would be granted. Haynes asked for relief under Count II, the rescission claim, and the court rescinded the deed from Jagoe to Jackson, declaring it "null and void ab initio." The result of the judgment was that the property at issue in the case "remain[ed] in [Haynes] in his capacity as the personal representative of the Estate of Bruce Jagoe, and never vested in the defendant."³ [¶ 8] On March 30, 1999, Stacey, acting pursuant to the power of attorney from Michael, and without counsel, filed a motion to vacate the orders entered on February 18 and 19. In her motion, she made several factual claims that were not supported by an affidavit. Stacey asserted that because of her husband's kidney condition, he had been "unable to function in a normal manner." She had, therefore, agreed to act as his attorney-in-fact under a power of attorney executed on September 18, 1998. Stacey stated that she knew nothing of the case until she received two letters from the court in early February of 1999. After receiving those letters, she went to the Cumberland County Courthouse on February 11 and asked how she could seek a postponement. She was told to contact the opposing attorney, which she did on February 16. He objected to the motion, and she noted the objection on the motion for postponement she filed on February 17.⁴ Stacey asserts that she had no knowledge of the trial management conference that was scheduled for that day.

[¶ 9] The court denied Stacey's motion, and Stacey filed a notice of appeal. In July of 1999, Haynes moved in this Court to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the notice of appeal was not "filed by the actual party Defendant below, Michael Jackson." Stacey filed two motions of her own with this Court, a motion requesting that the Court recognize her as Michael's legal representative in these proceedings, and a motion for reversal of judgment, or in the alternative, an order remanding to the court of proper jurisdiction.⁵ We ordered that all three motions "be considered along with the merits of the appeal."⁶

[¶ 10] In the power of attorney on which Stacey relies, Michael granted his wife sweeping powers as his attorney-in-fact. He granted Stacey the power "[t]o exercise, do, or perform any act, right, power, duty or obligation whatsoever that I now have or may acquire the legal right ... [to] do or perform in connection with ... any . . . matter whatsoever." The power was not to be removed because of Michael's disability or incapacity. It was to be terminated, however, if Michael was ever adjudged incompetent or upon Michael's death. Though the power of attorney granted by Michael did not specifically identify the power to appear and defend his rights in legal proceedings, a fair reading of the document would include such a power.⁷ The question remains, however, whether Michael could properly grant his wife that power.

[¶ 11] Haynes contends that Maine law does not permit legal representation by non-lawyer representatives in the courts and that, although an attorney-in-fact may be empowered to defend suits on behalf of her principal, she must do so through counsel rather than personally.

[¶ 12] We must determine whether state statutes and the rules promulgated by the Supreme Judicial Court⁸ allow Stacey to proceed with this appeal in the circumstances of this case. We conclude that she is unable to do so. Our power of attorney statute permits a grantor to delegate a broad range of powers.⁹ See 18-A M.R.S.A. § 5-508(e) (Supp.1999) ("the generality powers of an attorney-in-fact in a power of attorney ... is not limited by the inclusion in the power of attorney of a list of the specific powers granted to the attorney-in-fact").¹⁰ Section 5-508 does not contain any language that limits the scope of a power of attorney only to those areas in which the principal could act through an agent. See 18-A M.R.S.A. § 5-508 (Supp. 1999). Standing alone, then, § 5-508 does not prevent a principal from granting his attorney-in-fact the power to appear pro se on the principal's behalf.

[¶ 13] The statute prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law, however, limits the scope of § 5-508. It is a Class E crime to practice law in Maine without first obtaining admission to the bar. See 4 M.R.S.A. § 807(1) & (2) (Supp.1999). Section 807(3) does contain more than ten exceptions to the general prohibition, allowing, for example, officers or employees of businesses or government agencies to appear in court for special purposes, but it does not provide an exception authorizing an attorney-in-fact to appear pro se on behalf of her principal. See 4 M.R.S.A. § 807(3) (Supp.1999).

[¶ 14] Title 4 section 860 allows parties to "plead and manage their own causes in court or do so by the aid of such counsel as they seek to employ," but that section provides no authority for parties to appear through their attorneys-in-fact. See 4 M.R.S.A. § 860 (1989). At one time, "any citizen of good moral character who produce[d] in court a letter of attorney was permitted" to represent his principal. See R.S. ch. 93, § 45 (1930) (the precursor to today's § 860).¹¹ In 1931, however, the statute was amended to delete that language. See P.L.1931, ch. 176, § 5 (striking the language quoted above). In the same Act, the legislature repealed a provision that merely prevented non-lawyers from receiving payment for legal services and replaced it with a...