Opinion · Texas Supreme Court

Kunstoplast of America, Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp.

Kunstoplast of Am., Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., 937 S.W.2d 455 (Tex. 1997)

Type
Opinion
Court
Texas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Texas
Date
1997-02-21
Topic
general

holding that nonlawyers may perfect corporation’s appeal by depositing cash with district clerk in lieu of cost bond | holding that a non-lawyer may perform the ministerial task of filing a cost bond to perfect an appeal | holding that while a corporation is required to be represented by a licensed attorney, a nonlawyer may perform the ministerial task of perfecting an appeal | holding that nonlawyers may perfect corporation’s appeal by depositing cash with district clerk in lieu of cost bond | holding that, although a corporate representative may file notice of appeal, corporation generally may be represented only by licensed attorney | holding that nonlawyer corporate officer could perform the ministerial duty of filing a bond necessary to perfect an appeal for a corporation, which must otherwise be represented by legal counsel | holding that a non-attorney may not appear pro se on behalf of a corporation | holding that a non-attorney may not appear pro se on behalf of a corporation | holding that a non-attorney may not appear pro se on behalf of a corporation | holding that a non-attorney may not appear pro se on behalf of a corporation | holding that a non-attorney may not appear pro se on behalf of a corporation | holding that only licensed attorney can appear and represent a corporation in litigation | holding that nonlawyer corporate officer could perfect appeal for corporation | holding that nonlawyer corporate officer could perfect appeal for corporation | stating that generally, a corporation may be represented only by a licensed attorney, and an individual must appear in person or by an attorney | noting that although a corporate officer can perform “ministerial” tasks, like depositing a cash in lieu of a bond, a nonlawyer may not represent a corporation in court | holding nonlawyer corporate officer could perform “specific ministerial task of depositing cash with a clerk in lieu of a cost bond” but could not represent corporation in court | stating that generally, a corporation may be represented only by a licensed attorney | stating that an individual must appear in person or by an attorney | stating that generally an individual must appear either in person or by an attorney although a nonlawyer is not precluded from performing the specific ministerial task of depositing cash with a clerk in lieu of a cost bond | stating that generally an individual must appear either in person or by an attorney although a nonlawyer is not precluded from performing the specific ministerial task of depositing cash with a clerk in lieu of a cost bond | stating that corporations may appear only through licensed attorneys | stating that corporations may appear only through licensed attorneys | stating that corporations may appear only through licensed attorneys | Except for performance of ministerial tasks, corporations may appear and be represented only by a licensed attorney. | wherein the court approved of a non-lawyer depositing cash with a clerk in lieu of the cost bond then needed to perfect an appeal | “Generally a corporation may be represented only by a licensed attorney . . . .” | liberally interpreting Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(a)(1) to 17 preserve an appellant's right to appeal | "Generally a -5- corporation may be represented only by a licensed attorney, ... and an individual must appear in person or by an attorney" | “Generally a corporation may be represented only by a licensed attorney . . . .” | “Generally a corporation may be represented only by a licensed attorney . . . .” | “Generally a corporation may be represented only by a licensed attorney . . . .” | “Generally a corporation may be represented only by a licensed attorney . . . .” | “Generally a corporation may be represented only by a licensed attorney . . . .” | “Generally a corporation may be represented only by a licensed attorney . . . .” | “Generally a corporation may be represented only by a licensed attorney . . . .” | “Generally a corporation may

Citator

Cited by
125 opinions
KUNSTOPLAST OF AM. v. FORMOSA PLASTICS CORP.,937 S.W.2d 455(Tex. 1996)
937 S.W.2d 455, 40 Tex. Sup.Ct. J. 196
KUNSTOPLAST OF AMERICA, INC. and Ashok K.
Chauhan, Petitioners, v. FORMOSA PLASTICS CORPORATION, USA, Respondent.
No. 96-0757.
Supreme Court of Texas.
December 13, 1996.
Rehearing Overruled February 21, 1997.
Appeal from 127th District Court, Harris County, Sharolyn Wood, J.
Matthew L. Benson, Roger R. Evans, Houston, for Petitioners.Page 456

Mark F. Elvig, Scott J. Davenport, Houston, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
We decide whether a corporate officer, who is not a licensed attorney, may nevertheless perfect an appeal by filing cash deposits in lieu of cost bonds on behalf of the corporation and an individual. The court of appeals held that he could not, and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.928 S.W.2d 582. We reverse that judgment and remand the case to the court of appeals for consideration on the merits.

On November 30, 1995, Formosa Plastics Corp., U.S.A., obtained a judgment against Kunstoplast of America, Inc., and Ashok K. Chauhan. To perfect an appeal for both parties, Justin Seth, an officer of Kunstoplast, filed cash deposits in lieu of cost bonds on behalf of both Kunstoplast and Chauhan.SeeTEX. R. APP. P. 46(b), 48.

The court of appeals dismissed Kunstoplast's appeal, holding that only a licensed attorney can represent a corporation. 928 S.W.2d at 582. The court also dismissed Chauhan's appeal because he did not represent himself or appear by a licensed attorney as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 7.Id.at 583. We reject the court of appeals' holding on both counts.

Both Kunstoplast and Chauhan made bona fide attempts to invoke the court of appeals' jurisdiction by having Seth file their cash deposits in lieu of cost bonds.See GrandPrairie Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Southern Parts Imports,Inc.,813 S.W.2d 499, 500 (Tex. 1991);WoodsExploration Producing Co. v. Arkla Equip. Co.,528 S.W.2d 568, 570 (Tex. 1975). "It is our policy to construe rules reasonably but liberally, when possible, so that the right to appeal is not lost by creating a requirement not absolutely necessary from the literal words of the rule."Jamar v. Patterson,868 S.W.2d 318, 319 (Tex. 1993). Generally a corporation may be represented only by a licensed attorney,see Moore v. Elektro-Mobil Technik GmbH,874 S.W.2d 324, 327 (Tex.App. — El Paso 1994, writ denied), and an individual must appear in person or by an attorney.SeeTEX. R. CIV. P. 7. We hold, however, that Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 40(a)(1) and 41(a)(1) do not preclude a nonlawyer from performing the specific ministerial task of depositing cash with a clerk in lieu of a cost bond.

Accordingly, the Court grants Petitioners' application for writ of error and, without oral argument, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 170, reverses the judgment of the court of appeals and remands this case to that court for further proceedings.