CHARLES V. BEALL, AND MARILYN C. BEALL v. EQUINE TRANSITIONAL TRAINING ALLIANCE, INC.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: MAY 13, 2005; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth Of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2003-CA-002356-MR
CHARLES V. BEALL, AND
MARILYN C. BEALL
v.
APPELLANTS
APPEAL FROM BOURBON CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE ROBERT OVERSTREET, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 99-CI-00203
EQUINE TRANSITIONAL
TRAINING ALLIANCE, INC.
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
HENRY AND SCHRODER, JUDGES; EMBERTON, SENIOR JUDGE.1
SCHRODER, JUDGE:
Charles V. Beall and Marilyn C. Beall, pro se,
appeal an order of the Bourbon Circuit Court entered October 6,
2003, which dismissed their case against the Equine Transitional
Training Alliance, Inc. because the court refused to conduct a
trial for damages against the individual officers of the
corporation, the Sheriff, and others.
1
Because these individuals
Senior Judge Thomas D. Emberton sitting as Special Judge by assignment of
the Chief Justice pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution
and KRS 21.580.
were never joined, the only appellee was the Equine Transitional
Training Alliance, Inc., and the trial court properly refused to
conduct a hearing against nonparties.
Therefore, we affirm.
At different times the appellants were represented by
different attorneys during the litigation involved herein.
However, for the most part, they were pro se.
In order to help
the Bealls understand what happened, we are detailing the
procedural events that brought them to our Court for a third
time.
The civil case2 in this matter started with an action in
district court to enforce an agister’s lien pursuant to KRS
376.400 and KRS 376.410.
The agister’s lien arose as a result
of the Equine Transitional Training Alliance, Inc.’s (ETTA) care
of seventeen horses seized from Charles and Marilyn Beall’s farm
in Bourbon County, for an allegation of neglect and abuse.
The
Bealls tendered an answer and a counterclaim against ETTA for
damages for the wrongful seizure based on the
unconstitutionality of the statute which authorized seizure.
The answer and counterclaim was served on ETTA’s attorney and
the Attorney General, but was not filed in the Clerk’s Office.
Nevertheless, the Attorney General gave notice that it declined
to intervene.
2
More importantly, the counterclaim was against
99-CI-00203, filed October 12, 1999.
-2-
ETTA only and did not join any officers, etc. individually nor
any other parties.
The parties worked out an agreement in open court
whereby the Bealls would make improvements and the horses would
eventually be returned.
Meanwhile, ETTA was awarded $10.00 per
day per horse in its care.
When the Bealls refused return of
the horses, ETTA sought enforcement of its lien, through a levy
and sale of the horses.
The matter was transferred to circuit
court and was eventually set for trial on August 1, 2000.
The
court later set the matter for a pre-trial conference on October
3, 2000, with briefs due by September 22, 2000.
The appellants’
attorney was permitted to withdraw before filing a brief and the
Bealls filed a pro se motion on October 3, 2000, which stated
their position and requested that the suit be thrown out.
On
the same day, October 3, 2000, the trial court entered another
pre-trial order setting the matter for a jury trial on November
10, 2000.
Due to a court holiday, the matter was rescheduled to
December 18, 2000.
On the date set for trial, the Bealls filed
a request for a continuance, which was denied, and a default
judgment granted when the defendants failed to appear.
hearing was set for February 19, 2001.
A damage
A pro se motion to set
aside the default judgment was filed on December 27, 2000, and a
notice of appeal filed January 17, 2001.
The Court
subsequently, on January 29, 2001, entered written findings and
-3-
denied the motion to set aside the default.
A hearing on
damages was held on February 19, 2001, at which time the court
heard evidence (neither the Bealls nor an attorney on their
behalf were present) and entered a judgment for $50,213.57.
Even though the Bealls failed to appear, they did file a
document the same day, reciting their version of the case and
requesting $25,000.00 in damages from Sheriff John Ransdell and
$100,000.00 from Keri Basham.
On February 22, 2001, the trial
court entered its findings of fact and award for $41,713.57
against the Bealls in favor of ETTA and $8,580.00 in costs, for
a total of $50,293.57 (the $80.00 difference is due to an
addition error on the face of the February 19, 2001, docket
sheet).
A notice of appeal was filed March 5, 2001.
A motion for CR 60.02 relief was filed on March 15,
2001, by counsel for the Bealls.
On June 14, 2001, an order was
entered setting aside the default judgment and the matter was to
be set for trial.
dismissed.
Both prior appeals to our Court were
The case was subsequently set for trial on November
26-27, 2001, but was then continued indefinitely.
When the
court notified the attorneys of the need for a status
conference, Beall’s new attorney moved to withdraw.
A status
conference was scheduled for February 4, 2002, and rescheduled
for June 3, 2003.
On October 1, 2003, the Bealls pro se filed a
nonsensical pleading to be heard on October 7, 2003.
-4-
On October
6, 2003, the day actually scheduled for the hearing, ETTA’s
attorney failed to show, but Charles Beall did appear.
court dismissed the case “as against all parties”.
The
Charles
Beall objected to the dismissal of his counterclaim and filed a
notice of appeal, contending he has a right to present a
counterclaim for damages, both compensatory and punitive,
against certain individuals.
On appeal, Charles Beall contends the trial court
erred in dismissing the counterclaim against the ex-officers of
the ETTA.
We disagree.
The only parties to the counterclaim
were Charles V. Beall and Marilyn C. Beall, against the Equine
Transitional Training Alliance, Inc.
Although the Bealls
complained throughout the litigation about actions taken by
individuals, both within and outside of ETTA, no individual was
ever joined or served which would have made them a party.
Only
if the individuals had been made parties, or had individuals
been substituted for ETTA, would the trial court have
jurisdiction over the ex-officers or anyone else in this
particular suit.
See Clements v. Harris, 89 S.W.3d 403, 405-406
(Ky. 2002) for an explanation of jurisdiction, and see
Arlinghaus Builders v. Kentucky Public Service Commission, 142
S.W.3d 693 (Ky.App. 2003) for how to obtain jurisdiction over
the person.
This case illustrates the dangers of representing
oneself without legal training.
When the Bealls could not get
-5-
the others before the trial court, the court’s hands were tied
and the court could not give the Bealls any additional relief or
compensation.
Therefore, the circuit court had no alternative
but to dismiss the counterclaim.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Bourbon
Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS:
NO BRIEF FOR APPELLEE
Charles V. Beall, pro se
Lexington, Kentucky
Marilyn C. Beall, pro se
Lexington, Kentucky
-6-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
