Massongill v. McDevitt, 68641
| Decision Date | 14 February 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 68641,68641,1 |
| Citation | 828 P.2d 438,1989 OK CIV APP 82 |
| Parties | 1989 OK CIV APP 82 Ben MASSONGILL, Appellee, v. Daniel B. McDEVITT, Defendant. Appeal of PROGRESS ENGINEERING and CONSULTING ENTERPRISE, INC., an Oklahoma Corporation. Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Division |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma |
Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County; Allen Klein, Trial judge.
AFFIRMED.
Howard D. Perkins, Jr., Tulsa, for appellee.
This is a purported appeal from an order of the trial court refusing to set aside a default judgment entered for Plaintiff. Plaintiff had sued Appellant and Defendant McDevitt for libel. Plaintiff attempted service on McDevitt individually and as president and registered agent of Appellant corporation several times, by a service agent, by registered mail and finally through the Secretary of State.
The trial court entered a default judgment against Appellant corporation only for $1,250,000 plus interest. Appellant filed a motion to vacate the default judgment. At that hearing Appellant was represented by counsel. The trial court overruled Appellant's motion.
McDevitt filed an appeal to the Oklahoma Supreme Court "Pro Se for Appellant Progress Engineering and Consulting Enterprise, Inc." Appellee moved for dismissal of the appeal on the grounds McDevitt was not an attorney and thus could not represent Appellant, a corporation. The Supreme Court deferred consideration of this issue to the merits. After briefing by McDevitt and Appellee, the Supreme Court assigned the appeal to this Court for disposition.
Although the Oklahoma Legislature clearly provides a corporation may sue and be sued, 1 this Court declines to set the precedent of allowing a corporation to appear in propria persona in the prosecution of an appeal. Under the Oklahoma Constitution the Judiciary is vested with full and complete authority to control and regulate the practice of law in all its forms and to prevent the intrusion of unlicensed persons into the practice. The "practice of law" is the rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal principles and technique to serve the interests of another with his consent. 2 Courts thus may require appeals to be prosecuted and defended by persons trained in the law and familiar with court procedures. To this end, only persons admitted to the bar should "practice law" in this Court.
An individual may, of course, represent himself pro se in any proceedings wherein he is a party. But a person appearing pro se represents only himself. Any lack of expertise will primarily affect only him. In this case McDevitt is attempting to represent Appellant corporation. Individually, he is not a party to the appeal, and he is not an attorney. Such representation is not authorized in this state.
The question of whether a corporation, regarded by the law as an artificial entity, can appear on its own behalf through an agent other than an attorney has generally been answered in the negative in other jurisdictions. 3 In addition, pleadings filed and actions taken by a non-lawyer corporate officer in a legal action are subject to be stricken or held to be a nullity. In fact, some jurisdictions may enter a default judgment against a corporation on the ground the corporation was improperly represented in the action by a non-lawyer corporate officer. 4
It has been held also that an appeal is void and subject to dismissal by reason of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tal v. Hogan
...must be exercised in conformity with court rules that require corporations to be represented by counsel. See Massongill v. McDevitt, 828 P.2d 438, 439-40 (Okla.Ct.App.1989). Tal's double standard argument ignores the benefits of corporate status. Shareholders, including Tal, enjoy limited l......
-
Downtown Disposal Servs., Inc. v. City of Chi.
...by attorney). See also Land Management, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Protection, 368 A.2d 602 (Me. 1977); Massongill v. McDevitt, 1989 OK CIV APP 82, 828 P.2d 438 (1989); Tracy-Burke Associates v. Department of Employment Security, 699 P.2d 687 (Utah 1985); Jadair Inc. v. United Stat......
-
Cld Const., Inc. v. City of San Ramon
...v. Department of Envir. Protec. (1977 Me.) 368 A.2d 602: complaint signed by layperson a nullity and action dismissed; Massongill v. McDevitt (1989 Okla.) 828 P.2d 438, same; Tracy-Burke v. Department of Employment Sec. (Utah 1985) 699 P.2d 687: petition for review signed by nonattorney cor......
-
Redcorn v. Knox
...a separate entity from Redcorn, and Eduvest was not a party to or represented by counsel in the 2002 lawsuit. Citing Massongill v. McDevitt, 1989 OK CIV APP 82, 828 P.2d 438, and Allen v. City of Chickasha, 2009 OK CIV APP 52, 211 P.3d 241, they claim Redcorn's signature on behalf of Eduves......