Court Opinion

ID: 9677467
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:53:09.453479+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:56.194626
License: Public Domain

FEDERICO G. HINOJOSA, Jr., Justice,
dissenting.
The majority holds that a notary public may file an answer on behalf of a corporation. I disagree and respectfully dissent.
Tex.R.Civ.P. 7 states that “any party to a suit may appear and prosecute or defend his rights therein, either in person or by an attorney of the court.” However, it has long been held that Rule 7 applies only to individuals and not corporations. Globe Leasing, Inc. v. Engine Supply & Machine Serv., 437 S.W.2d 43, 45 (Tex.Civ.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1969, no writ). Only licensed attorneys may practice law. Id A corporation may not appear in court through its officers, who are not attorneys. Moore v. Elektro-Mobil Technik GmbH, 874 S.W.2d 324, 327 (Tex.App. — El Paso 1994, writ denied); Electronic Data Sys. Corp. v. Tyson, 862 S.W.2d 728, 737 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1993, no writ); Dell Dev. Corp. v. Best Indus. Uniform Supply Co., 743 S.W.2d 302, 303 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, writ denied); Globe Leasing at 45.
The majority opinion states that the “document filed on behalf of Handy Andy was entitled ‘AFFIDAVIT,’ but someone, possibly the court’s clerk, hand-wrote “Answer” and the cause number across the top of the affidavit.” The document was not signed by an attorney or by an officer of the corporation. The document was only signed by Margaret A Gutierrez, a notary public. The determinative issue in this case is whether the purported “affidavit,” even liberally construed as a “pleading,”1 constitutes an authorized appearance by the defendant corporation. I would hold that it does not.
I find no evidence in the record that the notary public was authorized to file an answer on behalf of the corporation. See Coker v. Weatheread, 852 S.W.2d 764 (Tex.App.— Tyler 1993, no writ) (non-party husband cannot act as unauthorized agent of defendant wife’s corporation and file pro se answer to suit on sworn account); Daylin, Inc. v. Juarez, 766 S.W.2d 347, 350 (Tex.App. — El Paso 1989, writ denied) (document contained no salutation to court or prayer for relief; no showing that it was product of defendant or its attorney); see also Pettaway v. Pettaway, 177 S.W.2d 285, 286-287 (Tex.Civ.App. — El Paso 1943, no writ) (letter signed by defendant but filed by organization insufficient to give court jurisdiction over defendant; court nevertheless considers merits of appeal). I also find no evidence in the record that the document was the product of the corporation or its attorney and no evidence that the document was intended to be filed as an appearance by the corporation.
A Notary Public not licensed to practice law is prohibited from practicing law, giving legal advice and accepting fees for legal advice. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 406.016(d). The majority ignores this statute and effectively proclaims that notaries public may now practice law.
I, therefore, respectfully dissent.

. The purported affidavit contains no salutation to the court, no prayer for relief, and no showing that the document is the product of the defendant or its attorney. See Daylin, Inc. v. Juarez, 766 S.W.2d 347, 350 (Tex.App.1989, writ denied) (papers delivered to clerk could not constitute answer even under liberal construction of the rules of civil procedure); cf. Frank, 682 S.W.2d at 588 (unsigned answer contains general and specific denials, affirmative defenses, and claim for affirmative relief; sufficient to prevent default).