H & H DEVELOPMENT, LLC v. Ramlow
2012 MT 51
| Mont. | 2012Background
- H & H Development and David House filed a pro se Lake County complaint against Ramlow and his firms for professional negligence (2007).
- The Lake County complaint had no summons issued and was never served.
- H & H later filed a Flathead County complaint with similar claims, and settled with Eagle Bend in February 2010.
- In January–February 2010, H & H moved to transfer the Lake County case to Flathead County and to amend the complaint; the amended Flathead complaint added David House and Ramlow's current firm as a defendant and included a lawyer’s signature.
- The District Court declared the Lake County complaint a nullity due to non-lawyer filing for a corporate entity, then granted summary judgment to Ramlow and the Firms based on the running statute of limitations; final judgment followed in March 2011.
- On appeal, the issues center on whether the amended complaint can relate back under Rule 15(c) and whether the applicable limitations period was properly applied; the court remands for 15(c) analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2010 amended Flathead complaint relates back to the 2007 Lake County complaint under Rule 15(c). | H & H and House argue 15(c) should relate back given the amended claims arising from the same conduct. | Ramlow and the Firms contend the relation back should be denied due to the initial nullity and corporate representation issues. | To be determined on remand; the court remands to assess 15(c) applicability. |
| What statute of limitations applies to the claims (professional malpractice vs. breach of contract). | H & H asserts a five-year breach of contract period should apply. | Defendants argue the three-year statute for professional malpractice applies because the action is grounded in malpractice. | Three-year statute for professional malpractice applies. |
| Whether a pro se corporate complaint by a non-attorney is a nullity and can be cured by later counsel filing. | H & H contends the initial pro se filing is not necessarily void and can be cured. | Ramlow and the Firms contend non-lawyer filing for a corporation is void and cannot be cured by later attorney appearance. | Remand to evaluate 15(c) factors (knowledge, prejudice, remedy) to determine if cure and relation back are permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guest v. McLaverty, 332 Mont. 421, 138 P.3d 812 (2006 MT) (limitations and applicability to malpractice actions; labeling does not change gravamen)
- Citizens Awareness Network v. Mont. Dept. of Envtl. Rev., 355 Mont. 60, 227 P.3d 583 (2010 MT 10) (relation back and avoidance of technicalities in summary judgment)
- Prentice Lumber Co. v. Hukill, 161 Mont. 8, 504 P.2d 277 (1969 MT) (relation back doctrine)
- Weaver v. Law Finn of Graybill, Ostrem, Warner & Crotty, 246 Mont. 175, 803 P.2d 1089 (1990 MT) (pro se corporate representation and standing considerations)
- Save Our Creeks v. City of Brooklyn Park, 699 N.W.2d 307 (Minn. 2005) (factors for curing pro se corporate complaints; non-attorney involvement evaluated)
- Old Hickory Engine and Mack Co. v. Henry, 937 S.W.2d 782 (1996 Tenn.) (defect in filing due to missing lawyer signature; cure not automatic)
- Cont'l Realty, Inc. v. Gerry, 251 Mont. 150, 822 P.2d 1083 (1991 MT) (non-lawyer representing a corporation; brief not considered)
- Carlson v. Workforce Safety and Insurance, 765 N.W.2d 691 (N.D. 2009) (jurisdictional issue on representation by non-attorney)