276( Macri ).) In addition, Civil Code section 1788.2, subdivisions (c) and (g) define the term “debt collector” as including a natural person, and Business and Professions Code section 6125 allows individuals to represent themselves in court. Such arrangements are legal in collection cases and do not create an attorney-client relationship between the assignor and the assignee. Fink's agreement to split with Stone Center any recovery he obtained in prosecuting those claims did not undermine the validity of the assignment of legal title to those claims. Stone Center absolutely and completely transferred all of its rights to its claims against S & E, and thus legal title to them, to Fink. The trial court found the assignment agreement violated Business and Professions Code section 6125, which prohibits the unauthorized practice of law.Īpplying California assignment law, we disagree with the trial court's analysis of the legal effect of the assignment agreement and reverse the judgment as to S & E only. The court explained the agreement did not constitute a valid assignment of claims, but a joint venture whereby Stone Center provided the causes of action and Fink provided legal representation of their venture. In a thorough statement of decision issued after the trial court granted S & E's motion for judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8, the court found Stone Center and Fink's assignment agreement to be void against public policy. Acting in propria persona, Fink filed a complaint against S & E and others, as the assignee of Stone Center Corporation's (Stone Center) claims against them and litigated those claims through a bench trial. Plaintiff David Fink appeals after judgment was entered in favor of, inter alia, defendant S & E Stone, Inc. Krane & Smith and Marc Smith, Encino, for Defendants and Respondents.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |