People By and Through Dept. of Public Works v. Malone
Decision Date | 25 February 1965 |
Citation | 232 Cal.App.2d 531,42 Cal.Rptr. 888 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, acting by and through the DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. M. Carroll MALONE and Paul T. Malone, Defendants and Appellants. Civ. 433. |
M. Carroll Malone, in pro. per.
Willedd Andrews, Los Angeles, for Paul T. Malone.
Harry S. Fenton, Sacramento, R. B. Pegram, Joseph A. Montoya, Philip F. Lanzafame and Robert W. Vidor, Los Angeles, for respondent.
A leading question here is: Can an agent, by virtue of a special power of attorney, participate in litigation on behalf of his principal and stipulate to a judgment in the place and stead of an attorney at law? The answer, which should be obvious at least to every judge and attorney familiar with the State Bar Act (Bus. & Prof.Code, div. 3, ch. 4), is a positive 'No.'
Desiring to construct a freeway through a portion of Riverside County, the Department of Public Works, brought a condemnation suit against the owners of the land along the proposed right of way, including the brothers Malone, who are appellants herein. M. Carroll Malone was an engineer and Paul T. Malone was acting as a sergeant in the air force. Personal service of the complaint and summons was made upon Carroll Malone and, at an air force installation in Merced County, upon Paul Malone. As Paul Malone expected to be absent on duty during the pendency of the suit, he executed a special power of attorney in favor of his brother, Carroll; the exact terms of the document are not available as it was lost; but it is conceded by all parties that such a power of attorney was in fact executed.
Although never an attorney at law, Carroll Malone purported to carry on the litigation for his brother as well as himself. He filed an answer which at the usual place for subscription contained the typewritten names of both brothers and his own personal signature. Although the law presupposes attendance upon the pretrial conference of an individual defendant who is not represented by an attorney, Carroll Malone purported to represent his brother there as well as himself, and, when the case was thereafter called for trial, he alone appeared for the two brothers and helped toward the selection of a jury; he then attended a conference in the chambers of the trial judge, and at that tme agreed to a settlement of the case on behalf of his brother and himself.
Following is the reporter's transcript of what took place:
(Discussion off record.)
Court and counsel and Carroll Malone then returned to the courtroom and the judge told the jury that he thought that '* * * the most satisfactory way to resolve litigation is by amicable stipulation rather than the controversial methods we employ in the courtroom, * * *' and that the parties had reached a settlement, whereupon he dismissed the jury.
In the interval between the proceedings just mentioned and the later motion of plaintiff to enter a judgment in the case, Carroll advised Paul of what had occurred and Paul, from his military base in Texas, told his brother in unmistakable terms that he did not approve the purported settlement and would not execute a new power of attorney in place of the one which had been lost; he also specifically withdrew whatever authorization to proceed with the case he had previously given his brother.
On June 4, 1963, respondent moved the court for the entry of a judgment based on the purported compromise against the two Malone brothers. Then, for the first time, an attorney at law appeared for Paul T. Malone and, with Carroll Malone, opposed the entry of such a judgment. However, the trial judge acceded to the idea that a judgment should be filed, and, thereafter, on the 6th day of August, 1963, he signed findings of fact and conclusions of law and a judgment, although there never had been a trial of the case; a jury was never selected; no evidence was introduced. The findings of fact and conclusions of law recite that 'M. Carroll Malone appeared [at the time of trial] in propria persona; Paul T. Malone did not appear in person and was not represented by counsel.'
The document continues:
'The parties proceeded in the selection of a jury, but prior to the impanelment of a jury to try the cause the parties entered into stipulations for the disposition of the matter; * * *.'
The court thereupon made 15 paragraphs of findings followed by conclusions of law, although there was no evidence and only a conditional stipulation in open court by the attorney for the Department of Public Works and Carroll Malone that the brothers would take $12,700 for their interest in the land if Paul Malone approved the stipulation. In the findings, the court refers to '* * * the answers of defendants M. Carroll Malone and Paul T. Malone, * * *' and denies that the allegations of value contained therein are true, being in excess of 'what is herein found to be the fact.' Paragraph X states:
'The Court finds that defendants M. Carroll Malone and Paul T. Malone have generally appeared in the above-entitled action in propria persona by answer to plaintiff's complaint, and by participation in the conduct of the proceedings subsequent to the filing of their answer.'
Is not this equivalent to a conclusion that M. Carroll Malone properly 'participated' in the place and stead of an attorney at law on behalf of Paul T. Malone?
Paragraph XII continues:
'The Court finds that at all times from the commencement of the action, to wit, March 26, 1962, to the calling of the cause for trial on March 4, 1963, defendant M. Carroll Malone has appeared in propria persona and that defendant Paul T. Malone has not personally appeared nor been represented by counsel, but that defendant Paul T. Malone has been represented by defendant M....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Baba v. Board of Sup'Rs of San Francisco
...App.2d 156, 160, 280 P.2d 187; Doran v. Dreyer (1956) 143 Cal.App.2d 289, 290, 299 P.2d 661; People ex rel. Dept. of Public Works v. Malone (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 531, 537, 42 Cal.Rptr. 888; Abar v. Rogers (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 862, 864-865, 177 Cal.Rptr. 655; Harding v. Collazo (1986) 177 C......
-
Altizer v. Highsmith
...... on the judgment from October 16, 2015 through that date, for a new total of $949,811.07. ....App.]4th 1361, 1367 [64 Cal.Rptr.2d 4] ; People v. Landlords Professional Services, Inc. [1986) ... are involved which, to safeguard the public, reasonably demand the application of a trained ...Dept. of Public Works v. Malone (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d ......
-
Russell v. Dopp
...a lawyer, Campbell cannot appear as attorney for his brother." (Id., at p. 772, 271 P.2d 185.) In People ex rel. Dept. of Public Works v. Malone (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 531, 42 Cal.Rptr. 888, the court held that Carroll Malone, a person holding a special power of attorney could not act as an ......
-
City of Downey v. Johnson
...notice of appeal filed in this court, and they must be ordered stricken. JUDGMENT INVALID In People By and Through Dept. of Public Works v. Malone (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 531, 537, 42 Cal.Rptr. 888, the appellate court reversed the judgment where a nonlawyer defendant purported to appear and ......