Hale Joy Trust v. Commissioner

57 F. App'x 323
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided February 13, 2003·No. Nos. 01-71262, 01-71289, 01-71306; Tax Ct. Nos. 7165-00, 6804-00, 6884-00·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

MEMORANDUM**

Olga Ortiz Rios, purported trustee for the Hale Joy Trust (No. 01-71262), the Hawaiian Joy Trust (No. 01-71289), and the Hale Kahala Trust (No. 01-71306) appeals pro se the Tax Court’s orders dismissing actions challenging notices of deficiency against the trust because she lacked authority under Tax Ct. R. 60 to institute cases on the trusts’ behalf. We dismiss the appeal.

Each of these consolidated appeals was filed by Ms. Rios, who is not a licensed attorney authorized to practice before this court. A non-attorney trustee may not represent a trust pro se in an Article III court. See C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697-98 (9th Cir.1987).

APPEALS No. 01-71262, No. 01-71289, and No. 01-71306 DISMISSED.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hale Joy Trust v. Commissioner, 57 F. App'x 323 (9th Cir. 2003).

57 F. App'x 323 (Hale Joy Trust v. Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Untitled Case
C.D. California, 2026
Carter v. Capital One
W.D. North Carolina, 2021
Gabayzadeh v. Taylor
639 F. Supp. 2d 298 (E.D. New York, 2009)