Introduction
Bitzmart, Inc. (Bitzmart) and Stealth MediaLabs, Inc. (Stealth MediaLabs) (collectively Appellants) appeal from the trial court’s judgment in favor of Gene Schen-berg (Respondent) on Respondent’s claims fоr compensation due at the time of his termination from employment with, and the value of his shares оf company stock in, Bitzmart. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 1
The trial court’s judgment in this matter was entered on March 23, 2004. On April 5, 2004, Howard Leventhal (Leventhal), a principal shareholder in Appellants, filed a document with the court entitled “Defendants’ Memorandum of Preliminary Grounds for Grant of New Trial.” On April 19, 2004, Leventhal filed а motion for new trial on behalf of Appellants. On May 5, 2004, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss Appellants’ post-trial motions for lack of jurisdiction, because they were filed by a non-attorney on behalf of a corporation. On May 13, 2004, after a hearing, the trial court granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss all of Appellants’ post-trial motions for lack of jurisdiction, noting that Leven-thal is a non-attornеy. The judgment also indicates that the parties stipulated that judgment in this case was entered on Marсh 23, 2004.
Appellants, by an attorney, filed a notice of appeal on May 21, 2004; twenty-nine days after the judgment became final on April 22, 2004.
Jurisdiction
Appellants present this Court with four points on appeal, the first of which asserts that we have jurisdiction of this case. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Appellants assert that we have jurisdiction to consider their appeal becаuse it was timely filed by an attorney within ten days after the trial court disposed of Appellants’ motion for new trial, and the trial court erred in ordering the motion for new trial dismissed on the grounds that it was filed by a non-аttorney, because Missouri does not apply a bright-line test holding any pleading filed on behalf of а corporation by a non-attorney void ab initio and, instead, a motion for new trial in a judge-tried casе is a perfunctory pleading and is an exception to the general rule that a corpоration must be represented by an attorney. Appellants maintain they would be prejudiced if their mоtion is held invalid as the trial court’s actions led them to believe the motion for new trial could be filed by a non-attorney.
Appellants’ notice of appeal, filed on May 21, 2004, was not filed within 10 days of the date the trial court’s March 23, 2004 judgment became final, as required by Rule 81.04(a).
2
Appellants maintain that their notice was filed within 10 days of the date the trial court disposed of their motion for new trial. However, the motion for new trial was not filed by an attorney. The general rule, is that a corporation may not represent itself in legal matters, and must act through licensed attorneys.
Reed v. Labor and Indus. Relations Comm’n,
Appellants maintain that they should come within the excеption to the rule, because they would be prejudiced if their motion is held invalid as the trial court’s actions led them to believe the motion for new trial could be filed by a non-attorney.
Appellants also argue that a motion for new trial in a judge-tried case is a perfunсtory pleading and is an exception to the general rule that a corporation must be represented by an attorney. Appellants present no authority for such a supposition. Furthermore, we wholly disagree that a motion for new trial is “perfunctory.” On the contrary, the timing and validity of a motion for new trial can be a decisive factor in whether a party has timely appealеd under Rule 81.05, as is demonstrated in the instant case.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that this appeal is untimely, and thus we lack jurisdiction to hear it. Appellants’ appeal is dismissed.