195 Conn.App. 828
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Edward W. Cook was executor of his wife Adelma Simmons’ estate and trustee/chairman of the Caprilands Foundation (a charitable remainder beneficiary).
- The Probate Court appointed George Purtill guardian ad litem, found conflicts of interest and improper estate management, removed Cook as executor under §45a-242, and named Purtill successor administrator.
- Cook, acting pro se in his capacity as trustee, appealed the Probate Court decree to Superior Court, challenging the guardian ad litem appointment and the guardian’s report as biased.
- The Superior Court (Farley, J.) dismissed Cook’s appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding Cook, as trustee, was not personally aggrieved by his removal as executor.
- Cook filed a motion to open the dismissal after the appeal period; the trial court denied that motion, and Cook then appealed the denial. The appellate court earlier dismissed as untimely Cook’s challenge to the dismissal itself.
- The Appellate Court held Cook, a non‑attorney, lacked authority to represent the foundation in court (he was not appearing in his "own cause" under §51‑88) and dismissed the remaining appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a non‑attorney trustee may represent a trust (appear pro se in a representative capacity) on appeal | Cook appealed as trustee of the foundation and sought to pursue the appeal and to open the judgment pro se | Purtill (defendant) argued a non‑attorney cannot represent a trust; Cook lacked authority to appear in a representative capacity | Held: A non‑attorney may appear pro se only for his own cause, not in a representative capacity; Cook could not represent the trust, so the appeal was dismissed |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying Cook’s motion to open the judgment | Cook sought reopening of the dismissal | Purtill argued the appeal and motion were untimely and Cook lacked standing/authority to bring them | Held: Because Cook lacked authority to represent the trust, the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the denial of the motion to open (no relief granted) |
Key Cases Cited
- Gorelick v. Montanaro, 119 Conn. App. 785 (Conn. App. 2010) (non‑attorneys may appear pro se only in their own cause; cannot represent another or a trust in court)
- State v. Hammer, 127 Conn. App. 448 (Conn. App. 2011) (recognizing limits on non‑attorney appearances in representative capacities)
- Expressway Associates II v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp. of Connecticut, 34 Conn. App. 543 (Conn. App. 1994) (same principle: prohibition on non‑attorneys practicing law or representing others in court)