Naylor Senior Citizens Housing, LP, and John Dilks v. Sides Construction Company, Inc.
2014 Mo. LEXIS 9
| Mo. | 2014Background
- Dilks filed a pro se Original Petition (Sept. 21, 2011) seeking flood damages for himself and the Partnerships, a Missouri statutory limited partnership.
- Partnerships cannot appear in Missouri courts except through a licensed attorney.
- Schulz Engineering and other defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing and unauthorized practice of law.
- plaintiffs’ counsel later obtained a licensed attorney but failed to file a corrected signature or a Rule 55.03 amendment as to the Partnerships.
- Trial court dismissed the Partnerships’ claims as a nullity because Dilks, not a licensed attorney, asserted them on their behalf, while Dilks’ personal claims remained.
- May 2, 2012 order restated dismissal of the Partnerships’ claims; Partnerships appealed, challenging the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May statutory entities appear in court only through licensed attorneys? | Partnerships should be able to proceed if the petition is effective. | Limited partnerships must be represented by licensed attorneys. | Yes; limited partnerships may appear only through licensed attorneys. |
| Was the Partnerships’ dismissal proper as unauthorized practice of law? | Dilks acted for the Partnerships; the petition should be treated as valid. | Dilks’ signing and filing for the Partnerships constitutes unauthorized practice of law. | Dismissal was proper; unauthorized practice of law cannot be given effect. |
| Does Rule 55.03(a) apply to unsigned filings by someone engaging in unauthorized practice? | Rule 55.03 should allow cure of missing signatures. | Rule 55.03(a) is not about preventing unauthorized practice of law. | Rule 55.03(a) does not apply to unauthorized practice of law. |
| Is the judgment final and appealable despite the without-prejudice language? | Dismissal of Partnerships’ claims affects the litigation; appealable. | Judgment may be appealable due to preclusive effect on Partnership claims. | Yes; the judgment is final and appealable as to the Partnerships. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reed v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n, 789 S.W.2d 19 (Mo. banc 1990) (filings by a lay person on behalf of a corporate employer will be null and void)
- Hulse v. Criger, 247 S.W.2d 855 (Mo. banc 1952) (sole arbiter of what constitutes the practice of law; appearance for another is practicing law)
- Clark v. Austin, 101 S.W.2d 977 (Mo. banc 1937) (corporations must appear through licensed attorneys)
- Glover v. State, 225 S.W.3d 425 (Mo. banc 2007) (Rule 55.03 applies to natural persons; inmate post-conviction context)
- Hensel v. American Air Network, 189 S.W.3d 582 (Mo. banc 2006) (plaintiffs may self-represent only if individuals; caveat for corporate entities)