This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
Lion’s Gate Water (LGW), a foreign business trust, sought to intervene in the Lower Rio Grande Stream Adjudication (LRGSA) proceedings. LGW’s motions to intervene were signed and filed by its sole trustee, who is not a licensed attorney. The trustee argued that LGW, as a trust, could be represented pro se. The district court disagreed, requiring LGW to be represented by counsel and denying its motion to intervene on substantive grounds.
Procedural History
- District Court, February 13, 2008: Denied LGW’s motion to intervene, holding that LGW lacked an interest in the LRGSA and must be represented by counsel.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (LGW): Argued that it was not the type of entity requiring legal representation by an attorney and that retaining counsel after filing the notice of appeal cured any procedural defects.
- Respondent (Office of the State Engineer): Opposed LGW’s motions, asserting that LGW lacked an interest in the LRGSA and that its trustee, as a non-attorney, could not represent the trust in court.
Legal Issues
- Was LGW’s notice of appeal defective because it was filed by a non-attorney?
- Could LGW cure the defective notice of appeal by subsequently retaining counsel?
Disposition
- The appeal was dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Reasons
Per Castillo J. (Wechsler and Vanzi JJ. concurring):
The Court held that LGW’s notice of appeal was defective because it was filed by a non-attorney, violating established legal principles that artificial entities, such as trusts, must be represented by licensed counsel. The Court relied on precedent, including Martinez v. Roscoe, which prohibits non-attorneys from representing artificial legal entities.
LGW’s subsequent retention of counsel did not cure the defect, as the proper filing of a notice of appeal is a mandatory prerequisite for appellate jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that procedural defects can only be overlooked in “unusual circumstances beyond the control of the parties,” which were not present in this case.
The Court also noted that LGW failed to provide sufficient legal authority or evidence to support its arguments, further undermining its position.