Background
Marshall D. Coleman, purportedly acting for the Marshall Coleman Living Trust 11222023, rented a warehouse from Lighthouse Storage’s predecessor for use as the headquarters of Black Habeas Enterprises LLC. After rent went unpaid, Lighthouse Storage locked Coleman out and warned that the stored property could be sold unless the account was brought current.
Coleman filed a pro se complaint alleging wrongful eviction, negligence, conversion, and violations of Kentucky’s Self-Storage Act. He later asserted that he had intended to act solely as the authorized representative of the Marshall Coleman Special Needs Trust, although the lease named a different trust and no trust documents were placed in the record. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Lighthouse Storage, and Coleman filed a pro se notice of appeal naming himself as the plaintiff-appellant.
The Court’s Holding
The Kentucky Court of Appeals concluded that Coleman lacked capacity to sue Lighthouse Storage on behalf of a trust. A trust acts through its trustee, and the trustee ordinarily is the proper party to prosecute claims concerning trust interests. Although a beneficiary may sometimes enforce a claim when a trustee cannot or will not do so to the beneficiary’s clear detriment, the record did not establish a basis for Coleman to proceed here.
The court further held that Coleman could not represent the trust pro se. Kentucky permits a natural person to represent himself, but that right does not extend to representing another person or legal entity. Because Coleman admitted that he prepared and filed pleadings on behalf of trust interests rather than on his own behalf, his conduct constituted the unauthorized practice of law. The court therefore struck the notice of appeal and dismissed the appeal without reaching Coleman’s challenge to the summary judgment.
Key Takeaways
- A trust generally must litigate through its trustee, who is the proper party to sue or be sued on the trust’s behalf.
- A nonlawyer’s right to appear pro se does not permit that person to represent a trust or another party.
- Because Coleman’s pro se notice sought to pursue another’s interests, the appellate court struck the notice and dismissed the appeal rather than deciding the merits.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that uncertainty about the real party in interest and a litigant’s representative capacity can prevent appellate review altogether. A trust beneficiary cannot cure those problems merely by obtaining a purported delegation of authority from a trustee.
Attorneys handling trust-related claims should identify the correct trust and trustee, establish the trustee’s authority in the record, and ensure that filings—including the notice of appeal—are made by a party legally entitled to proceed and through counsel when required.