How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Law Educator, Esq. Your Own Question
Law Educator, Esq.
Law Educator, Esq., Attorney
Category: Legal
Satisfied Customers: 118762
Experience:  JA Mentor -Attorney Labor/employment, corporate, sports law, admiralty/maritime and civil rights law
Type Your Legal Question Here...
Law Educator, Esq. is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

Is there any Federal Court case law where a corporations civil

This answer was rated:

Is there any Federal Court case law where a corporation's civil chose in action was assigned to an individual after it was dissolved and that individual was allowed to litigate it pro se?
Thank you for your question. I look forward to working with you to provide you the information you are seeking.

Actually, I am afraid that any time a corporate entity is involved even if they assigned rights to an individual or former owner of the corporation, there are no cases where the party was then allowed to proceed in the suit pro se. The law is that if any suit is brought by a corporate entity or on behalf of a corporate entity, the entity must be represented by counsel. As the individual would be taking over the rights of the corporate entity, they too would have to be represented by counsel.

Thank you so much for using I truly aim to please you as a customer, but please keep in mind that I do not know what you already know or don't know, or with what you need help, unless you tell me. If I did not answer the question you thought you were asking, please respond with the specific question you wanted answered. PLEASE use REPLY to EXPERT if you would like more information or if you feel something was not included in your answer.

Kindly remember the ONLY WAY experts receive any credit at all for spending time with customers is if you click on OK, GOOD or EXCELLENT SERVICE even though you have made a deposit or are a subscription customer. YOU MUST COMPLETE THE RATING FOR THE EXPERT TO XXXXX CREDIT, if not the site keeps your money on deposit.

Also remember, sometimes the law does not support what we want it to support, but that is not the fault of the person answering the question, so please be courteous.

Law Educator, Esq. and 3 other Legal Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 4 years ago.

Is there no divesting of the chose in action from a corporate entity that is no longer in existence, but the asset which the chose in action represents to a bankruptcy court could be assigned to an individual, and then possessed as any asset by an individual, and as such, that asset (the chose in action) can be as any individual's property -- enforced by an individual pro se?
I understand the all prior case law cited on the issue you've explained here; but my problem is that the process of divesting an asset from a corp. entity that no longer exists, shouldn't be held to the same rule of possession as if the entity did exist. A chose in action is merely an asset; and should be transferable as with any asset, and once done, receive the individual privileges any other asset to be prosecuted would receive. My metaphor would be a car with a title. A corporation assigns that title to a shareholder in exchange for a shareholder's loan after the corp. dissolves as part of its closing up its affairs. Any litigation over that car, from an accident, theft, wrongful lien, whatever, could be prosecuted or defended by the owner of that car. So what's the difference?

(All the traditional case law that supports the current view of the Courts on this issue pertains to more blatant examples where the Corp. still existed, and/or where the chose in action that was assigned was not filtered through a bankruptcy process that specifically Ordered the Trustee to abandon it, as with the instant example hypothetically being asked about.)

Thank you for your response.

The cause of action belongs to the company, no matter who is bringing it I am afraid. The owner of a car is an individual, which is why they can represent themselves in a car accident case. The corportion, like the owner of the car, is an individual and the corporation sues and is sued on its own as an individual, so when you are trying to bring suit even on behalf of a dissolved corporation, the corporation is still the individual entity that had the right and had to be represented by an attorney because you as a pro se cannot represent another individual in a court action.

Law Educator, Esq. and 3 other Legal Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 4 years ago.

Paul, I don't mean to be argumentative, or even anal, and I appreciate your POV because this is exactly what Courts have described. But there is case law on a chose of action that specifically states a chose of action does not die with the party it originated from. Granted, this is an individual, but taking your own observation into this point, so too is a corporation, albeit fictional. When it has been dissolved, it is "dead." But the chose of actions it had live on. Where I am at a loss on your explanation, is linking the original claim of an active corporation solely to its legend as if there is and never can be a divesting of that chose in action even long after it has ceased to exist. If a chose of action is assignable, and Bankruptcy Courts have so agreed many times, and if the chose in action is an asset, I fail to see what case law or statutes mandate that once transferred to an "individual," that the full rights of individual ownership -- not corporate ownership -- would not apply. Thus, the right to individually protect and argue that right, as provided in the Constitution for any property. It may be unprecedented, and I am not looking to be the one, but can there not be certain circumstances where a corporate chose in action is seen soley as the asset it is, like a car, which can be possessed by an individual with all the rights thereof?

Thank you for your response.

I do not consider it argumentative or even anal, it is simply something that every pro se litigant tries to argue and it has been shot down in every court where it is tried. So while you do not want to grasp the concept, it is because you do not want to have to pay an attorney to bring a claim and that is common and not something that is just particular to you.

The contract or agreement you are suing over is between the corporate entity and another party. You are standing in the shoes of the corporate entity to bring the sue. This means you have the exact same rights of the corporation in suing and you do have the "exact" same rights of the corporation to sue, which means that you have to be represented by counsel because it is the "corporation rights" you are suing over not your personal rights. You are not suing over an individual right here, you are suing over a corporate right and the state supreme courts and federal supreme court have all been adamant that the rights of a corporation must be represented by an attorney in all legal action and for an individual to represent corporate rights is the unauthorized practice of law
Law Educator, Esq. and 3 other Legal Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 4 years ago.

Paul, it is NOT that I do NOT want to pay an attorney. I've tried. The problem, as I know you are well aware (particularly if you step out of your attorney POV), is that the "system" is so broken, like the medical institutions, that the cost to litigate anything is prohibitive to anything, and anyone smaller than Gulf Oil. "Justice delayed is justice denied" comes to mind. The costs for simple, basic procedures of a claim, review, limine, discovery and so on -- particularly with the "games" that the law provides counsel (on both sides) to play on technicalities that are not needed, and not in the best interest of the law, because the "law" and the semantics of what means what has become so convoluted it requires the baby sitting of the Appellate Courts and beyond to keep some semblance of "justice" BUT ONLY for those who can afford it. And the operative word there is "afford" because it too is a moving target. The ultimate hypocrisy is embodied in the not too long ago Supreme Court decision giving corporate funding of elections equal power as the individual; hence: no more individual (citizen) represenation, because they are suboridated behind the wishes of the Beltways' "K" street mob, and all the Fortune 1000's they represent. That is why I sue individually; but I digressed. As usual, thanks... and I DO understand and I DO grasp the concept. It's just that it "sucks." (But who am I?)