Del. Valley Landscape Stone, Inc. v. RRQ, LLC
| Decision Date | 13 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2103 EDA 2021 |
| Parties | DELAWARE VALLEY LANDSCAPE STONE, INC., Its Assignees and Nominees v. RRQ, LLC, Allan J. Nowicki and the Allan J. Nowicki and Dianne M. Nowicki Family Trust Appeal of: the Allan J. Nowicki and Dianne M. Nowicki Family Trust |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Allan J. Nowicki and Dianna Nowicki, appellants, pro se.
William Dudeck, Doylestown, for appellee.
Appellant Allan J. Nowicki and Dianne M. Nowicki Family Trust, designated as Appellant or Trust herein as appropriate for ease of discussion, appeals from the judgment entered in favor of Appellee Delaware Valley Landscape Stone, Inc. that included the cancelling of a deed that Appellant had recorded. We strike Appellant's brief and direct Appellant to retain counsel to pursue this appeal.
The underlying facts of this case are well known to the parties. See Trial Ct. Op, 12/9/21, at 1-5. Briefly, on May 20, 2020, Appellant recorded a deed purporting to convey title to the subsurface rights in and under a parcel of real property (the Property) from co-defendant RRQ, LLC to Appellant. On June 12, 2020, Appellee purchased the Property at sheriff's sale. Subsequently on August 11, 2020, Appellee filed a quiet title action seeking, among other things, to strike the May 20, 2020 deed. Appellee's complaint named Appellant Trust, RRQ, LLC, and Allan J. Nowicki (collectively "Defendants") as defendants.1
Appellee obtained a default judgment against Defendants on February 11, 2021. On February 22, 2021, Allan Nowicki, filed a pro se petition to strike/open default judgment on behalf of Defendants.2 The trial court denied that petition on August 16, 2021, but it did not address whether Allan Nowicki had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. On October 8, 2021, the trial court entered final judgment in favor of Appellee, striking the May 20, 2020 deed.
On October 12, 2021, Allan Nowicki and Dianne Nowicki (collectively "Trustees") filed a pro se notice of appeal on behalf of Appellant in their capacity as Appellant's trustees. The Trustees filed a pro se court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. The trial court issued an opinion addressing the Trustees’ issues. While the trial court acknowledged that Trustees were proceeding pro se with this appeal, it did not address whether the Trustees engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. See Trial Ct. Op., 12/9/21, at 8 n.5.
On April 27, 2022, Appellee filed an application to quash in this Court, arguing that Trustees were engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Trustees filed a response in which they claimed that a trustee may represent a trust pro se .
Appellant raises the following issues for our review, which we summarize as follows:
Before we reach the merits of Appellant's claims, we first address Appellee's application to quash. Appellee argues that a non-attorney trustee may not represent a trust. App. to Quash, 4/27/22, at 2 ().3 Appellee argues that Trustees are not attorneys, and that their representation of the Trust constitutes the unauthorized practice of law, therefore, their filings are legal nullities. Id. Appellee continues that this Court does not have jurisdiction to review a legal nullity, and that this Court should quash the appeal. Id. at 2-3.
In response, Trustees concede that they are not licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania. Ans. to App. to Quash, 5/18/22, at 1 (unpaginated). However, Trustees argue that a trustee can represent a trust pro se . Id. at 2 (unpaginated) (citing Straban Twp. v. Hanoverian Trust , 1935 C.D. 2015, 2016 WL 4937885 (Pa. Cmwlth. filed Sept. 16, 2016) (unpublished mem.)).
"Jurisdiction is purely a question of law; the appellate standard of review is de novo and the scope of review plenary." Kapcsos v. Benshoff , 194 A.3d 139, 141 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted).
Section 2501 of the Judicial Code guarantees an individual's right to self-representation in civil matters. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 2501(a) (); see also In re Lawrence Cty. Tax Claim Bureau , 998 A.2d 675, 680 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). However, it well settled that, with certain exceptions, non-attorneys may not represent other parties before Pennsylvania courts. See, e.g. , Dauphin County Bar Ass'n v. Mazzacaro , 465 Pa. 545, 351 A.2d 229, 233-35 (1976) (); Kohlman v. W. Pennsylvania Hosp. , 438 Pa.Super. 352, 652 A.2d 849, 852 (1994) (). Further, the unauthorized practice of law is prohibited and criminalized in Pennsylvania. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 2524(a).
Additionally, the courts of this Commonwealth have stated that artificial entities, such as corporations, may only appear in court through counsel. See, e.g. , Norman for Est. of Shearlds v. Temple Univ. Health Sys. , 208 A.3d 1115, 1121 (Pa. Super. 2019) (), appeal denied , 223 A.3d 668 (Pa. 2020), cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S.Ct. 301, 208 L.Ed.2d 53 (2020) ; The Spirit of the Avenger Ministries v. Commonwealth , 767 A.2d 1130, 1130-31 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) ( Spirit ) (sua sponte quashing an appeal in which a non-attorney pastor sought to represent a non-profit association); Walacavage v. Excell 2000, Inc. , 331 Pa.Super. 137, 480 A.2d 281, 283-85 (1984) (); cf. Lawrence Cty. Tax Claim Bureau , 998 A.2d at 679-80 ().
As discussed above, the Commonwealth Court has considered cases in which trustees represented a trust pro se in two unpublished decisions. However, this appears to be a question of first impression before this Court.
In Woodland Trust , two trusts which owned real property in Sharon Hill Borough were fined after being found in violation of a borough ordinance.4 Id. , 2008 WL 9408011, at *1. The trustee then filed "pro se " notices of appeal. Id. The Commonwealth filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that because the trustee was "neither a party to the proceedings nor an attorney licensed to practice law in this Commonwealth[,]" the Commonwealth Court lacked jurisdiction. Id. The Commonwealth Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction and quashed the appeals because the trustee had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law when he filed the notices of appeal. Id. at *2 (citing, inter alia , Spirit , 767 A.2d at 1130-31 ).
Straban Township also involved a trustee's "pro se " appeal on behalf of a trust. Id. , 2016 WL 4937885 at *1. In that case, the trial court concluded that a business trust, like a corporation, may not appear in court without counsel and ordered the defendant trust to the obtain counsel. Id. at *1, 3. Later, the trial court concluded that the "trustee" failed to create a valid trust because there was a defect in the trust documents. Id. at *3-4. Therefore, the trial court concluded that because a valid trust had never been created, the "trustee" still owned the subject property, and he could therefore proceed pro se in his individual capacity as owner. Id. The trial court noted that if the owner were to create a valid trust in the future, that trust would have to be represented by a licensed attorney. Id. at *3.
On appeal, the Commonwealth Court agreed that the property owner failed to create a valid trust. Id. at *4. However, the Commonwealth Court concluded that "the issue of whether [the owner] may represent the non-trust is moot" and vacated the trial court's order "to the extent it holds that a business trust must be represented by counsel" because it was merely advisory. Id. Further, the Straban Township Court declined to address the question of whether a trustee could represent a trust "pro se " because that question was not ripe for review and was "best addressed in the context of a live controversy." Id.
In other jurisdictions, courts have held that a trustee who is not an attorney may not represent a trust in legal proceedings.5 See, e.g. , Braxton v. City of Boston , 96 Mass.App.Ct. 714, 138 N.E.3d 440, 443-44 (2019) (); EHQF Trust v. S & A Capital Partners, Inc. , 947 So.2d 606, 606-07 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007) (per curiam ) (); Ziegler v. Nickel , 64 Cal.App.4th 545, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 312, 315 (1998) ...
To continue reading
Request your trial