A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. v. Epstein

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: July 15, 2003
• Docket: PENcv-03-6
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT

PENOBSCOT, SS. CIVIL ACTION Docket No. CV- 03- 6 ~ Pe! ~ 7) 15 is.03

A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. et al.,

Petitioners

Vv. Order

PE NOSECO COUNTY DONALD L. GARPRECHT

Ruth F. Epstein, LAW LIBRARY

Respondent

AUG 5 ong

After the petitioners commenced this proceeding to confirm an arbitration award pursuant to 14 M.R.S.A. § 5937, the court issued a procedural ordér | setting a 21 day time period, commencing from the date of that order (April 19, 2003), in which the respondent would be permitted to file an objection, opposition or other response to the petitioners’ application. On May 12, Bernard A. Kansky filed a limited appearance on behalf of the respondent. Kansky also filed a motion to dismiss and a supporting written argument. Kansky filed this material on behalf of “Ruth F. Epstein, Pro Se” in his stated capacity as “Her Durable Power of Attorney-In-Fact.” The petitioners note in their response to Kansky’s submissions that he is an attorney. He is not, however, licensed to practice in the State of Maine, as the Board of Bar Overseers has confirmed. Thus, Kansky has not purported to appear — and, under the present circumstances, in fact cannot appear ~ in the Maine state courts as an attorney at law.

Further, the Law Court has held squarely that one person may not represent another as an “attorney in fact.” Haynes v. Jackson, 2000 ME 11, { 13, 744 A.2d 1050, 1053. Any submissions filed by an “attorney in fact” on behalf of a named party “can be given no effect.” Id., 15,744 A.2d at 1054. Therefore, Kansky’s entry of a limited appearance and his substantive filings cannot be considered in Opposition to the

petitioners’ application. Consequently, the application will be granted. The entry shall be:

For the foregoing reasons, the court strikes all material filed on behalf of the respondent. The court will grant the petitioners’ application to confirm the arbitration award. Counsel for the petitioners shall file a proposed confirmation order.

Dated: July 15, 2003 ch My

Justice, Main Superior Court

Jeffrey L. Hjelm A G EDWARDS AND SONS INC - PLAINTIFF

Attorney for: A G EDWARDS AND SONS INC PATRICIA PEARD

BERNSTEIN SHUR SAWYER & NELSON

100 MIDDLE ST

PO BOX 9729

PORTLAND ME 04104-5029

Attorney for: A G EDWARDS AND SONS INC RONALD SCHNEIDER

BETSY P CHAPMAN - PLAINTIFF

Attorney for: BETSY P CHAPMAN PATRICIA PEARD

BERNSTEIN SHUR SAWYER & NELSON 100 MIDDLE st

Attorney for: BETSY P CHAPMAN RONALD SCHNEIDER

HARRY W MOSES - PLAINTIFF

Attorney for: HARRY W MOSES PATRICIA PEARD

Attorney for: HARRY W MOSES RONALD SCHNEIDER

VS RUTH F EPSTEIN - DEFENDANT 103 ALETHA

NEEDHAM MA 02492

Filing Document: APPLICATION Filing Date: 01/10/2003

Page

of

Minor Case Type:

SUPERIOR COURT PENOBSCOT, ss.

Docket No BANSC-CV-2003-00006

DOCKET RECORD

ARBITRATION AWARDS

Printed on:

07/16/2003