DeSoto Gathering Co. v. Hill ‎(16-990)‎, 531 S.W.3d 396

DeSoto Gathering Co. LLC filed administrative appeals of Faulkner County ad valorem tax assessments; its senior tax manager (a nonlawyer) signed and filed the county-court petitions of appeal on the company’s behalf.
A licensed attorney later filed amended petitions, but those amended petitions were untimely under Ark. Code Ann. § 26-27-318.
The Faulkner County Court affirmed the Board of Equalization’s decision; DeSoto then appealed to Faulkner County Circuit Court.
Defendants (the assessor and county officials) moved to dismiss, arguing the county court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the corporate appeals were initiated by a nonlawyer (unauthorized practice of law).
The circuit court stayed the case pending related appellate guidance, then granted the motion to dismiss; DeSoto appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal, holding nonlawyer filings on behalf of a corporation are the unauthorized practice of law and render the pleadings a nullity, depriving the county (and thus circuit) court of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a corporation may initiate a county-court appeal through a nonlawyer employee	Statute authorizes a property owner to appeal; corporations as property owners may initiate the appeal without counsel	Corporate representation by a nonlawyer is the unauthorized practice of law; pleadings filed by nonlawyers on behalf of others are void	The filing by DeSoto’s nonlawyer was unauthorized practice of law; those filings are a nullity and deprive the court of jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed
Whether failure to timely object to nonlawyer representation waives the defect	Even if unauthorized, defendants’ failure to object below should preclude dismissal	Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be raised at any time, sua sponte	Subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised anytime; waiver argument rejected
Whether the Court should apply its ruling only prospectively	The rule is new and should be applied prospectively to avoid unfairness	The decision merely interprets existing statutes and precedent, so it applies retroactively	No prospective-only application; holding interprets existing law and applies to DeSoto’s filings

Union Nat’l Bank v. Arkansas Bar Ass’n, 224 Ark. 48 (1954) (defining practice of law; corporations and nonlawyers cannot represent others in court)
Davenport v. Lee, 348 Ark. 148 (2002) (pleadings filed by nonlawyers on behalf of another are nullities)
Preston v. Univ. Ark. Med. Scis., 354 Ark. 666 (2003) (complaint filed by unauthorized person is void and a nullity)
Clarendon Am. Ins. Co. v. Hickok, 370 Ark. 41 (2007) (notices of appeal filed by nonresident or unauthorized counsel are nullities; deadline consequences)
Smithco Invs. of W. Memphis, Inc. v. Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc., 370 Ark. 477 (2007) (dismissing appeal where notice filed by nonlawyer CEO was void)
Shoemate v. State, 339 Ark. 403 (1999) (holding nonlawyer filing a notice of appeal on another’s behalf constitutes unauthorized practice)