Margaret Maunder Associates, Inc. v. A-Copy, Inc., A-COP

Decision Date27 June 1985
Docket NumberA-COP,No. CV7-880,INC,CV7-880
Citation40 Conn.Supp. 361,499 A.2d 1172
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
PartiesMARGARET MAUNDER ASSOCIATES, INC., et al. v.

Margaret Maunder, pro se, individual plaintiff.

Sorokin & Sorokin, Hartford, for defendant.

DeMAYO, Judge.

This action was instituted on September 20, 1984, in the small claims division of the Superior Court. The complaint was signed by Margaret Maunder as president of the named plaintiff, a Connecticut corporation, and alleged that the defendant had sold them a copy machine which was represented to be a "demonstrator" when it had actually been extensively used as rented equipment. The defendant moved to transfer the case from the small claims division to the regular docket and that motion was granted.

In the course of hearing prior motions in this case, the court has suggested to Margaret Maunder that she should retain counsel to represent the corporation, of which she is president and sole stockholder. Maunder has responded that she cannot afford to retain counsel, has not been able to retain counsel and has no alternative, short of waiving her claim, but to act for the plaintiff corporation. She has so proceeded and has been an effective advocate and speaker and has at all times conducted herself with dignity and has been respectful to the court.

The defendant has now filed a motion for nonsuit, claiming that a corporation cannot represent itself or act through another person who is not an attorney.

At first blush, the defendant's position is sound, and the court is aware of the line of cases which supports its position. This court remembers well the long and bitter dispute between the Connecticut Bar Association and various state banks, culminating in decisions of the Superior and Supreme Courts. In fact, as a member of that association's governing body, the undersigned was involved in the preparation and dissemination of the bar association's response to the 1958 decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court.

Maunder, however, raises some provocative issues in support of her position. She points out that corporations appear regularly in the small claims division, represented by an officer or employee, and § 51-15 of the General Statutes provides for the commencement of such actions by an attorney or other person. Maunder also distinguishes her situation from that of the usual corporate plaintiff or defendant in that she is the sole stockholder of a subchapter S corporation and likens herself to a sole proprietorship. In effect, she claims she is representing only herself and appearing only in her own cause.

She also raises a due process claim and points out that by the simple procedural step of moving for a transfer to the regular docket, the defendant is attempting to deprive her of equal protection of the law.

It should be noted at the outset that rules and standards governing the practice of law and those persons permitted to practice law have as their primary purpose the protection of the public and not the creation of any private advantage for lawyers. Bar Association v. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., 20 Conn.Supp. 248, 250, 131 A.2d 646 (1957). The courts have a tradition of protecting pro se parties so that their cases will be fully and fairly heard. To this end, an overly strict construction of the rules of practice is not encouraged unless that course is necessary to protect the defendant or to avoid unduly impeding the court. Higgins v. Hartford County Bar Assn., 109 Conn. 690, 692, 145 A. 20 (1929); O'Connor v. Solomon, 103 Conn. 744, 745, 131 A. 736 (1926).

As pointed out by Maunder, Connecticut has for years permitted corporations to be represented in small claims matters by officers, agents, and employees. Section 51-15 of the General Statutes specifically provides for such...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Expressway Associates II v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp. of Connecticut
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • July 21, 1994
    ...United States v. Reeves, 431 F.2d 1187 (9th Cir.1970), a reported decision of our Superior Court, Margaret Maunder Associates, Inc. v. A-Copy, Inc., 40 Conn.Sup. 361, 499 A.2d 1172 (1985), and an unreported memorandum of decision of our Superior Court, United Illuminating Co. v. Res-Comm In......
  • Hawkeye Bank and Trust, Nat. Ass'n v. Baugh
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • November 21, 1990
    ...are so closely related that their identities are virtually indistinguishable. See, e.g., Margaret Maunder Assocs., Inc. v. A-Copy, Inc., 40 Conn.Supp. 361, 363-65, 499 A.2d 1172, 1174 (1985) (sole shareholder in effect "acting for herself"); Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Radcliffe on the De......
  • Taylor v. Knapp
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • November 18, 1988
    ...exclude [the corporation] from the courts"), aff'd mem., 614 F.2d 1287 (2d Cir.1979); Margaret Maunder Assocs. v. A-Copy, Inc., 40 Conn.Supp. 361, 499 A.2d 1172 (Conn.Sup.Ct.1985) (allowing sole shareholder of a corporation to represent interests of that corporation in contract dispute). Ta......
  • Triton Associates v. Six New Corp.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • April 19, 1988
    ...file a proper appearance and could be defaulted on that basis. See id. The defendant's reliance on Margaret Maunder Associates, Inc. v. A-Copy, Inc., 40 Conn.Sup. 361, 499 A.2d 1172 (1985), is misplaced, as that case is both procedurally and factually distinguishable from this case. That ca......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT