Pace v. Cooper

Pace v. Cooper

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
 

----ooOoo----

Richard W. Pace and Mary J. Pace,

Plaintiffs and Appellees,

v.

Jerry C. Cooper; Celestial Organization Group;
Jerry 20 Charitable Trust; and The Cooper Family Christian Equity Trust; et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20040887-CA
 

F I L E D
(January 21, 2005)
 

2005 UT App 20

 

-----

Fourth District, Provo Department

The Honorable Lynn W. Davis

Attorneys: Jerry C. Cooper, Kelso, Washington, Appellant Pro Se

Rodney W. Rivers, Provo, for Appellees

-----

Before Judges Billings, Greenwood, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

    Jerry C. Cooper appeals from the trial court's entry of a default judgment and the denial of his motion to set aside the judgment. Cooper filed notices of appeal on his own behalf and filed on the behalf of the Celestial Organization Group (Celestial), the Jerry 20 Charitable Trust (Jerry 20), and the Cooper Family Christian Equity Trust (Cooper Trust). This is before the court on the Paces' motion for summary disposition. Cooper did not file a response to the motion.

    Cooper filed answers to the Paces' complaint on behalf of himself and Celestial in September 2003. Other individual defendants filed answers for Jerry 20 and the Cooper Trust. The answers were identical in substance, stating that "[defendant] conditionally accept[s] Plaintiffs' offer to have [defendant] admit the allegations and averments in the Complaint, upon proof of claim by Plaintiffs that such allegations and averments are, in fact, true." The Paces moved to strike the answers as insufficient under rule 8 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. Additionally, the Paces argued the court should strike the answers of the entities because Cooper and the other individual defendants were barred from representing the entities as laypersons, as specifically ordered in a court order of July 30, 2003.

    After a hearing in December 2003, the trial court granted the Paces' motion to strike the answers, finding them insufficient. After the ruling from the bench, Cooper retained counsel for himself and Celestial. After the trial court entered its final order striking the answers and awarding judgment, Cooper's counsel filed both an appeal and a motion to set aside the judgment on behalf of Cooper and Celestial. The initial appeal was dismissed to allow the trial court to rule on Cooper and Celestial's motion to set aside the judgment. The trial court denied the motion in August 2004. Cooper then filed this appeal.

    Even if Cooper could file notices of appeal for the trust entities, this court lacks jurisdiction over an appeal from Jerry 20 or the Cooper Trust. To perfect an appeal, a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days of the entry of the judgment or order. See Utah R. App. P. 4(a). The judgment against Jerry 20 and the Cooper Trust was entered on January 8, 2004. The notice of appeal for these two entities was not filed until September 2004, well beyond the appeal time frame. The untimely notice deprives this court of jurisdiction regarding the appeal of Jerry 20 and the Cooper Trust. See Serrato v. Utah Transit Auth., 2000 UT App 299,¶7, 13 P.3d 616. Furthermore, Jerry 20 and the Cooper Trust were not parties to the motion to set aside. As a result, they have no standing to appeal the order denying that motion. See Society of Prof. Journalists v. Bullock, 743 P.2d 1166, 1170-71 (Utah 1987). Thus, the appeal is dismissed as to Jerry 20 and the Cooper Trust.

    The notice of appeal filed on behalf of Celestial is also insufficient to invoke the court's jurisdiction because Cooper cannot act in court on behalf of a corporate entity. In the pleadings below, Celestial has been consistently identified by both the Paces and Cooper as a "Washington Corporation Sole." Its status as a corporation "precludes self-representation because corporations are artificial entities that are not allowed to represent themselves in court." Hartford Leasing Corp. v. State, 888 P.2d 694, 700 (Utah Ct. App. 1994). Cooper, even as a corporate director, cannot represent the corporation. "A nonlawyer may not undertake legal representation of a corporate litigant." DeBry v. Cascade Enters., 879 P.2d 1353, 1362 (Utah 1994). It is well settled in Utah that "a corporate litigant must be represented in court by a licensed attorney." Tracy-Burke Assocs. v. Department of Employment Sec., 699 P.2d 687, 688 (Utah 1985) (per curiam). Cooper, a director of Celestial but not a licensed attorney, could not act for Celestial in court proceedings. As a result, the notice of appeal filed by Cooper on behalf of Celestial is ineffective to invoke the court's jurisdiction. See id.

    Cooper's individual notice of appeal was timely filed. However, the issues identified do not present a substantial question meriting further consideration by this court. Cooper challenges the trial court's ruling that he may not represent Celestial in the litigation. As noted above, Celestial, a corporate entity, must be represented by an attorney in court proceedings. Furthermore, the entry of the default judgment and the order denying Cooper's motion to set aside the judgment are independent of any issue of representation of corporate or trust entities. The trial court found the answers failed to comply with the rules of civil procedure, regardless of who filed the answer, and thus struck them. The trial court denied the motion to set aside because it found no grounds under rule 60(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure to justify setting aside the judgment. The matter of representation of corporate entities is irrelevant to the final rulings of the court. In sum, Cooper has failed to present a substantial question for review. See Utah R. App. P. 10(e).

    Accordingly, the appeals of Jerry 20, the Cooper Trust, and Celestial are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Additionally, the trial court's entry of default judgment and its order denying Cooper's motion to set aside are summarily affirmed.

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge