Heathman v. Hatch, 9593
| Citation | 13 Utah 2d 266,372 P.2d 990 |
| Decision Date | 26 June 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 9593,9593 |
| Parties | d 266 Harry G. HEATHMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Summer J. HATCH, Defendant and Respondent. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Utah |
Harry G. Heathman, Salt Lake City, for appellant.
Fabian & Clendenin, Shirley P. Jones, Jr., Salt Lake City, for respondent.
Plaintiff Harry G. Heathman, a layman, sues the defendant Sumner J. Hatch, an attorney, for alleged wrongs arising out of the defendant's representing the plaintiff as counsel in criminal proceedings in which the plaintiff had been charged first with grand larceny and later with grand larceny and embezzlement, which charges have been dismissed.
In this action plaintiff alleges that the dismissal of the criminal charges was obtained by his own efforts, and complains of the conduct of the defendant as his counsel upon various grounds which we refer to below. He has filed a number of complaints herein, each of which aborted in the face of a challenge to its sufficiency. Upon the entry of an order dismissing what is designated as plaintiff's second amended complaint, plaintiff declined to re-plead and brought this appeal.
The defendant's motion to dismiss having been granted, we are obliged to assume that the averments of plaintiff's complaint are true. 1 From the various allegations contained in its 33 legal size typewritten pages, it appears that the nature of the grievances which the plaintiff complains about is that the defendant was guilty of 'fraud,' 'conspiracy' and 'negligence': (1) in representing the plaintiff in connection with the criminal charges; (2) in failing to enforce his 'possessory lien' against the automobile and parts which he was accused of stealing; and (3) in failing to sue the complaining witness, Ivan Bland, and others, for filing and prosecuting the criminal charge. It is to be noted that the terms 'fraud,' 'conspiracy' and 'negligence' are but general accusation in the nature of conclusions of the pleader. They will not stand up against a motion to dismiss on that ground. The basic facts must be set forth with sufficient particularity to show what facts are claimed to constitute such charges.
It is not to be gainsaid that plaintiff as a layman has the right to act as his own attorney and to pursue his own rights in this action; 2 nor, that because of his lack of technical knowledge of law and procedure he should be accorded every consideration that may reasonably be indulged. Nevertheless, it appears from the record that at hearings on motions attacking his complaints, the judges of our district court patiently and at some length explained to him the necessity of observing the following of our Utah Rules of Civil Procedure:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nelson v. Jacobsen
...21 would also be routine. Defendant was entitled to undertake his own representation. U.C.A., 1953, § 78-51-25; Heathman v. Hatch, 13 Utah 2d 266, 268, 372 P.2d 990, 991 (1962). As a general rule, a party who represents himself will be held to the same standard of knowledge and practice as ......
-
Am. W. Bank Members, L.C. v. State
...express no opinion on the heightened pleading standard required by federal courts under Twombly.88 526 P.2d 912 (Utah 1974).89 13 Utah 2d 266, 372 P.2d 990 (1962).90 Id. at 991. Heathman also addressed claims of negligence. Id.91 Id. at 992.92 Ellefsen, 526 P.2d at 915.1 At some point, the ......
-
Am. W. Bank Members, L.C. v. State
...no opinion on the heightened pleading standard required by federal courts under Twombly. 88. 526 P.2d 912 (Utah 1974). 89. 13 Utah 2d 266, 372 P.2d 990 (1962). 90.Id. at 991. Heathman also addressed claims of negligence. Id. 91.Id. at 992. 92.Ellefsen, 526 P.2d at 915. 1. At some point, the......
-
Macarthur v. San Juan County, 2:00 CV 00584 BSJ.
...[the fraud] charges."` " Id. (quoting Williams v. State Farm Ins. Co., 656 P.2d 966, 971 (Utah 1982) (quoting Heathman v. Hatch, 13 Utah 2d 266, 372 P.2d 990, 991 (1962))). Moreover, as the Utah Court of Appeals recently observed in Coroles v. Sabey, 2003 UT App 339, 79 P.3d 974, "rule 9(b)......