284 A.3d 459
Pa. Super. Ct.2022Background
- On May 20, 2020 Allan J. Nowicki recorded a deed purporting to convey subsurface rights in a parcel from RRQ, LLC to himself/Trust.
- On June 12, 2020 Delaware Valley Landscape Stone, Inc. purchased the property at sheriff’s sale.
- On August 11, 2020 Appellee filed a quiet-title action seeking, among other relief, to strike the May 20 deed; default judgment was entered against the defendants on February 11, 2021.
- Allan Nowicki filed a pro se petition to strike/open the default judgment; the trial court denied relief and on October 8, 2021 entered final judgment striking the deed.
- On October 12, 2021 the Trust’s trustees (Allan and Dianne Nowicki) filed a pro se appeal and Rule 1925(b) statement on behalf of the Trust; Appellee later moved in this Court to quash the appeal, arguing the trustees’ filings constituted unauthorized practice of law.
- The Superior Court concluded trustees’ representation of the Trust was unauthorized practice, denied Appellee’s quash motion on jurisdictional grounds (following Bisher), struck the Trust’s brief, and ordered the Trust to retain counsel within 60 days or face dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May non-attorney trustees represent a trust pro se? | Trustees: a trustee can represent the trust pro se (citing Commonwealth Court authority). | Appellee: trustees are not lawyers; their filings are unauthorized and thus legal nullities that warrant quashing the appeal. | Held: Trustee representation is unauthorized practice of law; but under Bisher this does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction. Appellee’s quash denied; trustees must retain counsel. |
| Effect of unauthorized practice on existing appellate filings | Trustees: their appeal/filings should be considered (they sought merits review). | Appellee: filings are void ab initio and the appeal should be quashed for lack of jurisdiction. | Held: Following Bisher, filings by non-attorneys are voidable/curable (not jurisdictional nullities). Court struck the Trust’s brief and prohibited further pro se filings; ordered counsel to appear within 60 days. |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying/striking/opening the default judgment | Trustees: trial court erred and default should be stricken/opened; final judgment was erroneous. | Appellee: judgment and striking of deed were proper. | Held: Court did not decide merits. Merits preserved for consideration only after Trust obtains counsel and a new briefing schedule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bisher v. Lehigh Valley Health Network, 265 A.3d 383 (Pa. 2021) (unauthorized-practice filings are voidable/curable and do not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Norman for Estate of Shearlds v. Temple Univ. Health Sys., 208 A.3d 1115 (Pa. Super. 2019) (non-attorney administrator could not represent estate pro se)
- Walacavage v. Excell 2000, Inc., 480 A.2d 281 (Pa. Super. 1984) (corporation may not appear through a non-lawyer officer)
- Dauphin County Bar Ass’n v. Mazzacaro, 351 A.2d 229 (Pa. 1976) (limitations on non-lawyer representation in settlement/representation contexts)
- Kohlman v. Western Pennsylvania Hospital, 652 A.2d 849 (Pa. Super. 1994) (power of attorney does not permit non-lawyer to represent plaintiff in medical malpractice action)
- Braxton v. City of Boston, 138 N.E.3d 440 (Mass. App. Ct. 2019) (non-attorney trustee may not represent a trust pro se; trustee must retain counsel)