The attached new decision in the Gibson case relates to the tenant's claim that the judgment, which awarded possession and back rent to the landlord, is void because the landlord was a corporation and was not represented at trial by counsel or a qualified representative under Supreme Court Rule 57. In the instant case, the landlord acknowledged that it was represented at trial by a person who was not a lawyer and had not been qualified under Supreme Court Rule 57. The Superior Court noted that an overwhelming number of courts have held a judgment awarded to a corporation void where the corporation initiated legal proceedings and was not represented at trial by a qualified person. Gibson , Mem. The reasons for holding judgment void where corporations are not represented by legal counsel are obvious.
Corporations are artificial entities and can only act through agents.
Often it is necessary to know if the agent is authorized to act on behalf of the corporation. As an artificial entity, it cannot itself practice law. In addition, many courts have said that with the benefits of being a corporation must come the responsibilities to act through duly authorized agents. Since the landlord in the Gibson case had not taken the steps necessary pursuant to Rule 57 to qualify a non-lawyer representative, the Superior Court held the judgment in Gibson void. However, the Superior Court declined to apply its determination retroactively.