K. M. A., Inc., Bankrupt. K. M. A., Inc. v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation
In Re K. M. A., INC., Bankrupt. K. M. A., INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
Opinion
BY THE COURT:
General Motors Acceptance Corporation moves to dismiss K.M.A., Inc.’s appeal because the notice of appeal for the corporate appellant, K.M.A., Inc., was not signed by an attorney.
In January 1980 when the trustee was about to pay General Motors Acceptance Corporation’s claim arising from the Chapter X reorganization of K.M.A., Inc., K.M.A., by and through an attorney, filed an objection to the claim. After a trial, the bankruptcy court denied the objection. On appeal to the district court where K.M.A., Inc. was represented by counsel, relief to K.M.A., Inc. was denied. On April 20,1981, the sole stockholder of K.M.A., Inc., a non-attorney, filed a notice of appeal for the corporation from the district court’s adverse holding. He seeks to proceed pro se on behalf of the corporation.
The law is clear that a corporation as a fictional legal person can only be represented by licensed counsel.
Commercial & Railroad Bank of Vicksburg v. Slocomb, 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 60 , 10 L.Ed. 354 (1840);
In re Victor Publishers, Inc., 545 F.2d 285 (1st Cir. 1976). This is so even when the person seeking to represent the corporation is its president and major stockholder.
In re Las Colinas Development Corp., 585 F.2d 7 (1st Cir. 1978).
It is not clear, however, whether the filing of the corporation’s notice of appeal by someone who is not an attorney is sufficient to deprive this Court of its jurisdiction to consider the appeal.
Compare Strong Delivery Ministry Association v. Board of Appeals of Cook County, 543 F.2d 32 (7th Cir. 1976), and In re Highley, 459 F.2d 554 (9th Cir. 1972), with DeVilliers v. Atlas Corp., 360 F.2d 292 (10th Cir. 1966). We are mindful of the emphasis placed on flexibility and substance rather than form in the appellate rules, see Fed.R.App.P. 3(c), 26(b). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that General Motors Acceptance Corporation’s motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED, unless within 30 days of the entry of this order an attorney admitted to practice before this Court files an appearance to represent the corporate appellant, in which event the appeal shall not be dismissed.
DISMISSED.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 12 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that non-attorney sole stockholder of corporation could not proceed pro se on behalf of the corporation)
-
(holding that corporation’s notice of appeal shall be accepted if attorney enters appearance on corporation’s behalf within 30 days, but dismissed if no attorney enters appearance)
-
(holding that bankruptcy appeal could not be brought by non-attorney on behalf of corporation)
-
(giving appellant thirty days to retain counsel, when appellant was represented by counsel at the lower court, and attempted to file its appeal pro se)
-
(granting a corporation additional time to obtain counsel before dismissing an appeal complete ly)
-
(“This is so even when the person seeking to represent the corporation is its president and major stockholder.” (citation omitted))
Cited by 83 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Courts of Appeals22
- Federal District Courts48
- Bankruptcy Courts4
- State Highest Courts3
- State Appellate Courts4
- Territorial Courts2
Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
- James L. Koster II v. Cromwell Capital LLC
- Conmigo Enterprises LLC v. AB Mill
- Sheryll Ann Dillon d/b/a iTax Self Help Financial LLC on behalf of its clients, joining a nationwide class of similarly situated taxpayers v. Internal Revenue Service, Commissioner of the IRS, and U.S. Government
- American Services, LLC v. M&A Land Management, LLC, Eric Pettigrew, Justin Harris, James Hinton, and John Does 1-10
- Lillyana Rodriguez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. 3CS2 LLC d/b/a The Back Porch and Ken Strickler
- Wendy Williams Dupont v. Mayor Tyrin Z. Truong
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.