Grossman v. Vaupel

California Court of Appeal Dec 21, 1970 No. Civ. 37423Published

Before: Alarcon

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an unlicensed and unbonded individual who is not an employee of an attorney cannot accept assignments of claims to bring suit, as they do not fall within the statutory exemptions of the Collection Agency Act.

Issues

Whether an attorney's wife, who is not licensed or bonded, may accept assignments of claims and bring actions thereon if represented by her husband or his law firm.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Henningsen did not create a new class of persons exempt from the regulatory provisions of the Collection Agency Act.”

“No similar exemption from the regulatory provisions of the Collection Agency Act has been created by the Legislature for wives or relatives of persons now excluded from coverage.”

“Under the facts of this case and consistent with the Collection Agency Act the trial court correctly ordered judgment in favor of the defendant.”

[708]

Opinion

ALARCON, J.

Factual Background

On July 10, 1967, the appellant filed a three-count complaint in the Municipal Court of the Los Angeles Judicial District seeking a money judgment in the amount of $2,237.46.

The complaint alleged that the appellant was the assignee of the First National Bank of Boston; Norwood Mills; Rudin and Roth, and Terra International. The matter was set for trial on April 16, 1970. The respondent, Paul Snyder appeared in propria persona. During the opening statement the trial judge inquired of counsel for the appellant whether the plaintiff, E. Grossman was licensed and bonded pursuant to the Collection Agency Act. Appellant’s counsel replied that E. Grossman was exempt from the license and bonding requirements of the Collection Agency Act. The court then stated that E. Grossman did not have the legal capacity to sue. Sandor Boxer was then called as a witness by the plaintiff. He testified that he was a partner in the law firm of Coskey and Coskey and the attorney for the assigners First National Bank of Boston, Norwood Mills, Rudin and Roth, and Terra International. E. Grossman, was the first initial and maiden name of his wife. E. Grossman has no direct nor indirect interest in the claims of the assigners “save except for her community interest in and to her husband’s partnership interest.” E. Grossman is not and has never been

an employee of the law firm of Coskey and Coskey.

Upon conclusion of this testimony the court rejected an offer of proof and refused to permit any evidence to be presented as to the merits of the plaintiff’s causes of action on the grounds that E. Grossman had no legal capacity to maintain the action. The question of the legal capacity of the plaintiff to bring this action was first raised by the trial court

sua sponte

at the time of trial. The respondent made no statements or motions and asked no questions. The trial court ordered the entry of judgment for the defendant on the sole grounds that the plaintiff had no legal standing to prosecute this action.

Grossman v. Vaupel

AI Brief

ALARCON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief