Rachel Foreman v. Texas Independence Plaza
01-24-00274-CV
| Tex. App. | Sep 24, 2024Background
- The dispute involved a landlord/tenant conflict between Texas Independence Plaza, LLC (landlord) and Dentistry at Artysan Lane, PLLC (tenant).
- The parties settled the case and the trial court entered an agreed judgment based on their settlement.
- Texas Independence Plaza alleged that Dentistry at Artysan Lane failed to meet their obligations under the agreed judgment (not vacating and not beginning payments).
- The trial court granted Texas Independence Plaza's motion to enforce the judgment and awarded possession of the property to the landlord.
- Rachel Foreman, the owner of Dentistry at Artysan Lane, filed a pro se notice of appeal from the order enforcing the judgment, but she was not personally named as a party in the case.
- Texas Independence Plaza filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on jurisdictional grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Individual Standing to Appeal | Foreman argued she could appeal individually. | Foreman not a party below, lacks standing. | Foreman lacks individual standing; dismissed. |
| Authority to Represent the Entity in Appeal | Foreman appealed on behalf of entity. | Only attorneys may represent corporations in court. | Pro se notice of appeal on entity's behalf ineffective. |
| Jurisdiction Over Order | Sought appeal of enforcement order. | Not a final judgment or appealable order. | No jurisdiction; order not appealable. |
| Response to Motion to Dismiss | No response filed. | N/A | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 261 S.W.3d 24 (Tex. 2008) (entities cannot practice law; must be represented by attorney)
- Kunstoplast of Am. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., USA, 937 S.W.2d 455 (Tex. 1996) (corporations must act through attorneys in court, except for ministerial acts)
- Crain v. Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm., 11 S.W.3d 328 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999) (preparation and filing of legal documents is practice of law)
- Globe Leasing v. Engine Supply & Mach. Serv., 437 S.W.2d 43 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1969) (pro se corporate representative filing notice of appeal is ineffective)