Nicollet Restoration, Inc. v. Turnham
| Decision Date | 15 October 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. C3-91-991,C3-91-991 |
| Citation | 475 N.W.2d 508 |
| Parties | NICOLLET RESTORATION, INC., Appellant, v. Darcy TURNHAM d/b/a Darcy Sales, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
Minn.Stat. Sec. 481.02, subd. 1 (1990) prohibits a corporation from appearing through a non-attorney agent in district court notwithstanding the fact that the action originated in conciliation court.
Charles A. Cox, Cox & Goudy, Minneapolis, for appellant.
Jack F. Brown, Minneapolis, for respondent.
Considered and decided by KALITOWSKI, P.J., and FORSBERG and SCHUMACHER, JJ.
Appellant Nicollet Restoration, Inc. challenges the district court's dismissal of its action which was removed to district court from conciliation court, arguing that the Rules for the Conciliation Courts allow parties to choose whether to proceed with or without attorney representation in district court. We affirm the dismissal.
On March 26, 1990, Nicollet Restoration, Inc. (Nicollet Restoration) brought action against Darcy Turnham doing business as Darcy Sales (Turnham) in Hennepin County Conciliation Court for breach of a commercial tenancy agreement. After the May 17, 1990 conciliation court trial, the referee ordered judgment to be entered for Nicollet Restoration.
Turnham appealed the judgment to Hennepin County District Court. On the date set for trial, Nicollet Restoration attempted to appear through its president, John J. Kerwin, who is not a licensed attorney. Turnham's attorney objected to Nicollet Restoration's appearance without counsel and moved to dismiss. The trial judge stated the case could be continued to permit Nicollet Restoration to retain an attorney. Kerwin, on behalf of the corporation, elected not to request a continuance and the trial court issued an order dismissing Nicollet Restoration's cause of action with prejudice pursuant to Minnesota case law which requires a corporation to have attorney representation in district court. Appeal is taken from the judgment.
Can a corporation appear through a non-attorney agent in an action originally commenced in conciliation court upon removal to district court?
Questions concerning rules are questions of law, and appellate courts need not defer to the conclusions of law drawn by the trial court from undisputed facts. See Reichel v. Hefner, 472 N.W.2d 346, 347 (Minn.App.1991) (quoting Wilkie v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., 398 N.W.2d 607, 610 (Minn.App.1986)). Consequently, this court reviews this issue de novo.
Appellant Nicollet Restoration argues that the district court erroneously dismissed its action for failing to appear through an attorney because the Rules for the Conciliation Courts make attorney representation optional for an appeal from conciliation court. We disagree.
Appellant relies on two conciliation court rules to advance its argument. Minn.R.Conciliation Cts. 1.12, subd. 2 states:
Appearances in conciliation court shall be by the parties, without attorneys, except by leave of the court; a removal of the cause to county court, however, as provided in these rules, may be taken through an attorney at law.
(Emphasis added.) Minn.R.Conciliation Cts. 1.21, subd. 3(a) similarly provides:
At the hearing in county court [on removal], either party may be represented by an attorney at law.
(Emphasis added.)
The conciliation court trial and the subsequent removal to district court are separate proceedings. As Minn.R.Conciliation Cts. 1.21, subd. 1 states:
Any person aggrieved by an order for judgment entered by a conciliation judge after contested hearing may remove the cause to county court for trial de novo.
Hennepin County Conciliation Court is governed by statutes in addition to the conciliation court rules. See Minn.Stat. Secs. 488A.12-.17 (1990). Minn.Stat. Sec. 488A.17, subd. 11 addresses the appropriate practice and procedure to be used in an appeal from Hennepin County Conciliation Court to district court:
Except as otherwise expressly provided in this act, pleading, practice and procedure in a removed cause are the same as in an action originally brought in municipal court.
Thus, the district court is not required to give deference to the conciliation court's decision nor is it bound by the conciliation court's rules of practice.
Recently, in Reichel v. Hefner, 472 N.W.2d 346, 348 (Minn.App.1991), this court held "The removal from conciliation court to district court constitutes commencement of a civil action." Accordingly, the Rules of Civil Procedure governed the method of service in Reichel. See id. The conciliation court rules likewise no longer governed this action upon removal to district...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nicollet Restoration, Inc. v. Turnham
...court of appeals affirmed the trial court, holding that it made no difference that petitioner's action originated in conciliation court. 475 N.W.2d 508. This appeal Generally, a corporation must be represented by a licensed attorney when appearing in court, regardless of whether the person ......
-
Mohamed v. Aaron, A14-0839
..."[t]he conciliation court trial and the subsequent removal to district court are separate proceedings." Nicollet Restoration, Inc. v. Turnham, 475 N.W.2d 508, 510 (Minn. App. 1991), aff'd, 486 N.W.2d 753 (Minn. 1992). Affirmed. *. Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by ......
-
Kelbro Co. v. Vinny's on the River, LLC
...App. 1991). "The conciliation court rules . . . no longer govern[] . . . upon removal to district court." Nicollet Restoration, Inc. v. Turnham, 475 N.W.2d 508, 510 (Minn. App. 1991),aff'd, 486 N.W.2d 753 (Minn. 1992); see also Minn. R. Civ. P. 1 ("These rules govern the procedure in the di......