TELEPOWER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; STEVEN L. PHILLIPS AND KAREN A. PHILLIPS, APPELLANTS,
v.
LTI VEHICLE LEASING CORP., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed whether a notice of appeal filed by a corporation but signed by a non-lawyer (a corporate officer/guarantor) rather than by an attorney is a complete nullity or is voidable and subject to curative amendment. The court held that such notices are voidable rather than void ab initio, allowing the corporation 20 days to file an amended notice signed by licensed counsel.
A corporate notice of appeal not signed by a licensed attorney is voidable, not void ab initio, and is subject to curative amendment. The court dismissed the appeal as to Telepower Communications, Inc., unless the corporation filed an amended notice of appeal signed by an attorney within 20 days.
[1] A notice of appeal filed on behalf of a corporation and signed by a non-lawyer is voidable, not a complete nullity.
[2] A corporation must be represented by an attorney in court proceedings.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“because the timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite to any attempted appeal, a dismissal would effectively end any appeal on behalf of this corporation”
Establishes why the court carefully considered the appropriate remedy for the jurisdictional defect rather than summarily dismissing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTelepower Communications, Inc., a lessee and primary obligor, and Steven L. Phillips, a guarantor of the corporate obligation, were codefendants in li…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Corporate Representation By Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
FARMER, Judge.
It appears to the court that the notice of appeal on behalf of appellant Telepower Communications, Inc., [the corporation] was not signed by an attorney but instead by one Steven L. Phillips, who was a codefendant with the corporation in the litigation below. The relationship of Phillips to the corporation is not described in the papers before us, except that the corporation was the lessee and primary obligor of the obligation that was the subject of the suit, while Phillips was one of two guarantors of the corporate obligation. The issue before the court is how to treat a notice of appeal in the name of a corporate appellant signed by a non-lawyer officer, director, employee or agent, but not signed by an attorney licensed to practice law.
Ordinarily we indulge some liberality in correcting such technical deficiencies and thus permit a prompt amendment to cure the deficiency. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.040(d).1 On the other hand, however, the suggestion is often made that such a writing as we confront today is a legal nullity, ineffective for any purpose, as to which we can only dismiss the entirely nugatory effort to appeal. Of course, because the timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite to any attempted appeal, a dismissal would effectively end any appeal on behalf of this corporation. Because this is not an isolated instance, and attempted appeals by corporations without attorneys are often encountered in this court, we have decided to use this occasion to make clear the policy of this court in responding to such attempts.2
The reasons supporting the policy that corporations must be represented in court by attorneys are fully and thoughtfully explored in Szteinbaum v. Kaes Inversiones y Valores, C.A., 476 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), and we see no need to restate them here. The question is whether to treat a corporate notice of appeal not signed by an attorney as a complete nullity without the possibility of a curative amendment, on the one hand, or instead as voidable if not cured within some specified time. We opt, like the Third District, for the latter. See Szteinbaum, 476 So. 2d at 252, and Great Southern Trucking Co. v. Standard Wholesale Grocery Co., 110 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959); see also Magnolias Nursing and Convalescent Center v. Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 428 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (notice of appeal from final agency action by unrepresented corporation not incurable), rev. denied, 449 So. 2d 265 (Fla.1984). But see Daytona Migi Corp. v. Daytona Automotive Fiberglass Inc., 417 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (in dicta, notice of appeal by unrepresented corporation would have been dismissed if case were not dismissed on other grounds).
Accordingly, we hold that this appeal will be dismissed as to Telepower Communications, Inc., unless within 20 days of the date of this opinion the corporation files with the Clerk of this court an amended notice of appeal signed by an attorney authorized to practice law.
HERSEY and POLEN, JJ., concur. . Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.040(d) provides: "At any time in the interest of justice, the court may permit any part of the proceeding to be amended so that it may be disposed of on the merits. In the absence of amendment, the court may disregard any procedural error or defect that does not adversely affect the substantial rights of the parties.”
. Our previous decision in Hub Financial Corporation v. Olmetti, 465 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), does not address the issue of notices of appeal by an unrepresented corporation; it merely states the general rule that "a corporation cannot represent itself” in connection with proceedings in the trial court. 465 So. 2d at 619.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of M.V.-B. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. & Guardian Ad Litem Program, 19 So. 3d 381 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…to the notice of appeal adding himself as an appellant after the expiration of thirty days, even if the grandparents had no right to file the notice. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.040(c) & (d); 9.360(a); Telepower Commc’ns, Inc. v. LTI Vehicle Leasing Corp., 658 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Assuming the father’s joinder in the appeal provides this court with at least suffi [*384] cient jurisdiction to determine our jurisdiction, the question is whether this court has jurisdiction to review a nonfinal order in a dep…
-
Torrey v. Leesburg Reg'l Med. Ctr., 769 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2000)…ance of counsel to represent the corporation and, moreover, that such a rule dis-serves the policy that cases should be decided on their merits. Id. at 249-50 (citation omitted); see also Telepower Communications, Inc. v. LTI Vehicle Leasing Corp., 658 So. 2d 1026 [*1045] (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (allowing the appellant corporation an opportunity to amend its notice of appeal signed by a non-attorney in accordance with Szteinbaum). As emphasized by the Third District in Szteinbaum, the nullity rule truly places t…
-
Joe-Lin, Inc. v. LRG Rest. Grp., Inc., 696 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…. Daytona Automotive Fiberglass, Inc., 417 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Nicholson Supply Co. v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Hardee County, 184 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966); but see Telepower Communications, Inc. v. LTI Vehicle Leasing Corp., 658 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Szteinbaum v. Kaes [*541] Inversiones y Valores, C.A., 476 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Further, we conclude that appellees failed to establish excusable neglect. LRG maintains that it demonstrated excusable neglect through i…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Szteinbaum v. Kaes Inversiones y Valores, 476 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Daytona Migi Corp. v. Daytona Auto. Fiberglass Inc., 417 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Chapman v. Jorge Garcia, M.D., 465 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- The Magnolias Nursing & Convalescent Ctr. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 428 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Great S. Trucking Co. v. Standard Wholesale Grocery Co., 110 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)