Rare Endowment, LLC v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, Trailer Divas, LLC, Moreno's Mobile Home Transport, LLC, Texas Finest Manufactured Housing, Inc., Justin Davis Lynn and Stayci Bradford ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                               In The
    Court of Appeals
    Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
    No. 06-17-00106-CV
    RARE ENDOWMENT, LLC, Appellant
    V.
    GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC, TRAILER DIVAS, LLC, MORENO’S MOBILE HOME
    TRANSPORT, LLC, TEXAS FINEST MANUFACTURED HOUSING, INC., JUSTIN DAVIS
    LYNN AND STAYCI BRADFORD, Appellees
    On Appeal from the 40th District Court
    Ellis County, Texas
    Trial Court No. 79874
    Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
    Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    On August 27, 2018, we notified Randy Algoe and Rare Endowment, LLC, that Texas
    Finest Manufactured Housing, Inc., an appellee in this case, filed a motion to dismiss 1 this appeal 2
    because Algoe, as a non-attorney agent, was attempting to represent the interests of Rare
    Endowment, LLC, a limited liability corporation, on appeal.
    We explained that although Rule 7 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure allows an
    individual to represent himself pro se, that Rule does not apply when a person is litigating corporate
    rights in a representative capacity. See Steele v. McDonald, 
    202 S.W.3d 926
    , 928 (Tex. App.—
    Waco 2006, no pet.) (per curiam). “Texas courts have consistently held that a nonattorney may
    not appear pro se on behalf of a corporation.” Corona v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 
    245 S.W.3d 75
    ,
    79 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, pet. denied); see Kunstoplast of Am., Inc. v. Formosa Plastics
    Corp., USA, 
    937 S.W.2d 455
    , 456 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam) (“Generally a corporation may be
    represented only by a licensed attorney, and an individual must appear in person or by an
    attorney.”) (citation omitted); Custom-Crete, Inc. v. K-Bar Servs., Inc., 
    82 S.W.3d 655
    , 659 (Tex.
    App.—San Antonio 2002, no pet.) (trial court was correct to prohibit individual from participating
    at trial because he was a non-attorney attempting to represent defendant company). The general
    1
    Appellee Ditech Financial, LLC, f/k/a Green Tree Servicing, LLC, joined in the motion to dismiss, as did Appellees’
    Stayci Bradford, Moreno’s Mobile Home Transport, LLC, and Justin Davis Lynn.
    2
    Originally appealed to the Tenth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme
    Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2013). We are unaware
    of any conflict between precedent of the Tenth Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant issue. See
    TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3
    2
    rule that a non-attorney cannot represent a corporate entity applies with the same force and effect
    in an appellate court as it does in a trial court.
    In light of the foregoing, we afforded Rare Endowment, LLC, the opportunity to retain an
    attorney authorized to practice law in the State of Texas to represent its interests in this appeal and
    to file a brief on its behalf. We warned that the failure to do so would result in the dismissal of
    this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c). In response, Algoe requested an extension of time in
    which to engage new counsel. We granted that request and directed Algoe to retain counsel to
    represent the interests of Rare Endowment, LLC, on or before October 18, 2018. We stated that
    no further extensions of that deadline would be granted and again warned that the failure to satisfy
    this requirement would result in the dismissal of this appeal for failure to comply with this Court’s
    notice and/or for want of prosecution. See 
    id. Because this
    Court has not received a notice of appearance by an attorney authorized to
    practice law in the State of Texas and retained to represent the interests of Rare Endowment, LLC,
    in this appeal, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. 3
    Bailey C. Moseley
    Justice
    Date Submitted:              October 29, 2018
    Date Decided:                October 30, 2018
    3
    We deny appellees’ motion to dismiss this appeal as moot.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-17-00106-CV

Filed Date: 10/30/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/31/2018