Court Opinion

ID: 9940418
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-14 15:07:01.735798+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:50.518362
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
                        SECOND DISTRICT

            GREGORY A. DARST, as trustee of the G.A. Darst
                 Equity Trust dated May 29, 1975,

                                Appellant,

                                     v.

               WEST COAST GROUP ENTERPRISES, LLC,

                                 Appellee.

                              No. 2D22-2455

                            February 14, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Amy M. Williams,
Judge.

Gregory A. Darst, pro se.

Richard T. Avis of Law Offices of Richard T. Avis, St. Petersburg, for
Appellee.

LaROSE, Judge.

     Gregory A. Darst, as trustee of the G.A. Darst Equity Trust, dated
May 29, 1975, pro se, appeals the trial court's final summary judgment
entered in favor of West Coast Group Enterprises, LLC.
     Initially, Mr. Darst asserts that he is the proper party on appeal,
both individually and as trustee. In the trial court, West Coast Group
sued Mr. Darst in his trustee capacity. Thus, the proper appellant is Mr.
Darst, as trustee of the G.A. Darst Equity Trust. See Barnett v. Barnett,
705 So. 2d 63, 64 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) ("Florida Rule of Appellate
Procedure 9.020(f)(1) defines '[a]ppellant' as a 'party who seeks to invoke
the appeal jurisdiction of a court.' The general rule is that a non-party is
a 'stranger to the record' who cannot 'transfer jurisdiction to the
appellate court.' " (alteration in original) (quoting Forcum v. Symmes, 133
So. 88, 89 (Fla. 1931))); see, e.g., Turkell-White v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A.,
273 So. 3d 1021, 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (dismissing the appeal as to
Turkell-White where "[t]he record below and on appeal clearly showed
that neither Barbara A. Turkell-White nor her estate were named parties
in the suit below").
      However, Mr. Darst appears pro se. A trustee, pro se, may not
appear for the trust. Thus, we dismiss this appeal.1 See Griner v.
Rockridge Prop. Owners Ass'n, 59 So. 3d 1143, 1143 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
("Because a trustee may not appear pro se on behalf of a trust, see EHQF
Tr. v. S & A Capital Partners, Inc., 947 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007),
this appeal is dismissed."); Lavine v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 226 So. 3d
327, 327 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (dismissing the appeal as to Lavine, as
trustee of the DCM Revocable Trust, because Lavine was not an attorney
and could not represent the trust pro se); EHQF Tr., 947 So. 2d at 606

      1 Given our disposition, we do not reach the merits of Mr. Darst's

appeal. We do note that parties in civil cases are generally not entitled to
the appointment of counsel. See Erlandsson v. Erlandsson, 296 So. 3d
431, 435 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) ("In cases applying the due process clause
of the Florida Constitution or the federal constitution, courts have found
that the appointment of counsel is required only in proceedings where
incarceration or involuntary commitment may be imposed or where a
parent faces loss of the right to parenthood, such as in termination of
parental rights proceedings." (footnote omitted)); M.E.K. v. R.L.K., 921 So.
2d 787, 791 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) ("Finding a right to counsel in a civil
termination of parental rights case does not create a dangerous
precedent for finding such a right in other civil cases because other civil
cases do not involve the same unique deprivation of a fundamental right
by the State.").
                                      2
("Although Florida has not previously addressed the issue, other states
have concluded that a trustee cannot appear pro se on behalf of the
trust, because the trustee represents the interests of others and would
therefore be engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.").
     Dismissed.

SLEET, C.J., and MORRIS, J., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.

                                      3