346 S.W.3d 208
Tex. App.2011Background
- Rabb International, Inc. sued SHL Thai Food Service, LLC for damages to rugs after a shopping-center sewer backup allegedly due to restaurant greaset trap issues.
- Rabb alleged negligence and nuisance; Rabb sought $250,000 in property damages.
- The jury ruled for the Restaurant; final judgment entered November 2, 2009.
- Haseeb Butt, Rabb’s non-attorney owner/president, filed a motion for new trial on December 1, 2009 claiming inability to afford an attorney.
- Restaurant argued Butt’s filing was improper because corporations must be represented by licensed attorneys; Rabb appealed only from the denial of the motion for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Butt’s non-attorney filing extended the appeal deadline | Butt’s filing extended 30→90 days under Rule 26.1(a) | Non-attorney filing is defective and cannot extend deadlines | Yes, Butt’s filing extended the deadline under Rule 26.1(a) |
| Whether the trial court could deny the new-trial motion filed by a non-attorney | Corporation should be allowed to pursue relief despite non-attorney filing | Court may deny for unauthorized practice of law | Yes, Court could deny; denial upheld due to unauthorized representation |
| Whether the late amended motion for new trial could cure the defect | Attorney filing late could cure defects | Amendment must be filed within the proper time window; late amendment ineffective | No cure; amended motion after deadline preserves nothing for appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Globe Leasing, Inc. v. Engine Supply & Mach. Serv., 437 S.W.2d 43 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1969) (non-attorney filing on behalf of a corporation may be void but not always ineffective for certain purposes)
- Kunstoplast of Am., Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., USA., 937 S.W.2d 455 (Tex.1996) (non-attorney can perfect appeal on behalf of a corporation; but other filings may be defective)
- Home Savings of Am. FSB v. Harris Cnty. Water Control and Improvement Dist., 928 S.W.2d 217 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1996) (an answer filed by a non-attorney can prevent default judgment)
- R.T.A. Int'l v. Cano, 915 S.W.2d 149 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1996) (non-attorney filing still may affect proceedings despite defects)
- Dell Dev. Corp. v. Best Indus. Uniform Supply, 743 S.W.2d 302 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1987) (corporations must be represented by licensed attorneys; trial court not required to sua sponte aid)
- Moritz v. Preiss, 121 S.W.3d 715 (Tex.2003) (trial court cannot extend deadline for an amended motion beyond 30 days after judgment; amended motion after deadline preserves nothing)