Old Hickory Engineering and Mach. Co., Inc. v. Henry

Citation937 S.W.2d 782
PartiesOLD HICKORY ENGINEERING & MACHINE COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Phillip HENRY and Jeff Shepard, Defendants-Appellants.
Decision Date26 August 1996
CourtSupreme Court of Tennessee

John M. Cannon, Cannon, Cannon & Cooper, P.C., Goodlettsville, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Joseph Y. Longmire, Jr., Jones, Longmire & Sindle, Hendersonville, for Defendants-Appellants.

OPINION

REID, Justice.

This case presents for review the decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the trial court's dismissal of the complaint. The Court of Appeals held that the complaint, which was signed only by the non-lawyer president of the corporate plaintiff, was "not void" and that the subsequent appearance of a lawyer on behalf of the plaintiff "corrected the defect" in the pleading. That court ordered that the suit be allowed to proceed to trial even though the complaint was filed on the last day permitted by the savings statute, Tenn.Code Ann. § 28-1-105 (Supp.1995). The decision by the Court of Appeals is reversed.

THE CASE

A complaint asserting a cause of action based on negligence was filed by the plaintiff, Old Hickory Engineering and Machine Company, Inc., on November 2, 1990. The complaint was prepared and signed by an attorney representing the plaintiff. On March 15, 1993, the plaintiff took a non-suit. On the anniversary of the non-suit, a complaint almost identical to the original complaint was signed and filed by the non-lawyer president of the plaintiff corporation. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss. More than two months after the complaint was filed, an attorney filed a notice of appearance on behalf of the plaintiff.

The trial court found the filing of the complaint to be "void" and ordered the complaint "dismissed with prejudice." The Court of Appeals treated the absence of counsel as a "deficiency" which was "cured" by the subsequent notice of appearance by an attorney on behalf of the plaintiff.

ANALYSIS

The cause of action is time-barred unless the suit was commenced on the date the complaint signed by the president of the plaintiff corporation was filed. 1 The Tennessee savings statute, Tenn.Code Ann. § 28-1-105, provides in pertinent part:

New action after adverse decision ....--(a) If the action is commenced within the time limited by a rule or statute of limitation, but the judgment or decree is rendered against the plaintiff upon any ground not concluding the plaintiff's right of action, or where the judgment or decree is rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and is arrested, or reversed on appeal, the plaintiff, or the plaintiff's representatives and privies, as the case may be, may, from time to time, commence a new action within one (1) year after the reversal or arrest....

In Balsinger v. Gass, 214 Tenn. 343, 353, 379 S.W.2d 800, 805 (1964), this Court held that "all actions which may be brought by virtue of [the above] statute must be brought within one year after the inconclusive dismissal of an action brought within the period of the applicable statute of limitations."

The determinative issue is whether "a new action" was commenced. An action is commenced by filing a complaint. Rule 3, Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, provides All civil actions are commenced by filing a complaint and summons with the clerk of the Court. An action is commenced within the meaning of any statute of limitations upon such filing of a complaint and summons, whether process be issued or not issued and whether process be returned served or unserved....

See also 18 Tenn. Juris. Limitation of Actions § 44 (1984). Consequently, a new action was commenced if a complaint was filed.

The formality of filing pleadings is controlled by Rule 11, Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Prior to its amendment in 1995, that rule provided as follows:

Every pleading, motion, and other paper of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in his individual name, whose address shall be stated. A party who is not represented by an attorney shall sign his pleading, motion, or other paper and state his address. Except when otherwise specifically provided by rule or statute, pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit. The rule in equity that the averments of an answer under oath must be overcome by the testimony of two witnesses or of one witness sustained by corroborating circumstances is abolished. The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading, motion, or other paper; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation....

This rule makes the signing of a pleading by an attorney of record or the party an essential condition to the validity of a pleading.

The plaintiff's insistence, that the signing of the complaint by its president constitutes compliance with Rule 11's provision that a pleading may be signed by the party, is not consistent with policy or precedent. A corporation is an artificial entity, which "cannot act or speak except through natural persons duly authorized." Great Am. Indem. Co. v. Utility Contractors, Inc., 21 Tenn.App. 463, 471, 111 S.W.2d 901, 907 (Tenn.App.1937). Since a corporation is an entity separate and distinct from its officers and shareholders, the provision of Tenn.Code Ann. § 23-1-109 (1994), that "[a]ny person may conduct and manage the person's own case in any court of this state," is not applicable to corporations, even when the person undertaking to act for the corporation is an officer or a shareholder. 9A William M. Fletcher, Fletcher Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Corporations § 4463 (perm. ed. rev.1992). See generally Annotation, Propriety and Effect of Corporation's Appearance Pro Se Through Agent Who is Not Attorney, 8 A.L.R.5th 653 (l992). The conclusion is that the corporate plaintiff in this case was not acting pro se in filing the complaint.

Allowing the president of the corporation to make the affirmations required by Rule 11 would constitute the unauthorized practice of law. The rule and the policy consideration are well stated in Third National Bank in Nashville v. Celebrate Yourself Productions, Inc., 807 S.W.2d 704 (Tenn.Ct.App.1990). In that case, the court declined to allow two shareholders of a closely held corporation, who were not attorneys, to represent the corporation in a bank's action for default of a promissory note. The bank had filed suit against the corporation, as well as its three shareholders who were guarantors of the corporation's note. The shareholders contended that by preventing them from representing the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
64 cases
  • Hoover v. West Virginia Bd. of Medicine, 31576.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • May 28, 2004
    ...Idaho 511, 81 P.3d 416, 420 (2003) (affirming dismissal of complaint that was not properly signed); Old Hickory Engineering & Mach. Co., Inc. v. Henry, 937 S.W.2d 782, 786 (Tenn.1996) (affirming dismissal of complaint that was not properly signed); Eyman v. Kentucky Cent. Ins. Co., 870 S.W.......
  • Bratton v. Bratton
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • April 30, 2004
    ... ... See Brown Oil Co. v. Johnson, 689 S.W.2d 149, 151 (Tenn.1985) ... Rodgers v. Southern Newspapers, Inc., 214 Tenn. 335, 379 S.W.2d 797, 800 (1964) ... ...
  • Beard v. Branson
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • August 30, 2017
    ...requires ‘the professional judgment of a lawyer,’ and is, therefore, the practice of law." Old Hickory Eng'g and Mach. Co. v. Henry , 937 S.W.2d 782, 786 (Tenn. 1996) (quoting Petition of Burson , 909 S.W.2d at 776 ) (" Old Hickory ").Nevertheless, a person who is not an attorney "may condu......
  • In re Rose
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Sixth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Tennessee
    • August 18, 2004
    ...seek to perform services which require skill, training and character, without adequate qualifications." Old Hickory Eng'g & Mach. Co., Inc. v. Henry, 937 S.W.2d 782, 786 (Tenn.1996) (quoting Third Nat'l Bank v. Celebrate Yourself Prod., Inc., 807 S.W.2d 704, 706 (Tenn.Ct.App.1990)). It has ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT