ÿWPCÜ …# VUNa %¯ 0DµbùU> 0`? w@Ÿ 4ß ó 0D 0wF 0ˆ½ 0DE ‰ 0J‘ 0TÛ 0^/ 0h 0rõ 0|g 0†ã 0i 1uùU,n 0dšU,þU>*¦h D3U6A Bw 0@”B)ÔDCý AM@U*<·óóv~ævÓd AO7Ɔ 0DL D/ B¿˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(óf$¡¡Ò€°ÒÒÀ°Ò- ù-<èÀ( 9Z &Courier Regular(83‚ª$©©Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ý oDpDqrEstDuPvPwÓ€DÒ $3|x($Ó$‘‘òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(83E$¥¥Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  ÝÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.(8(3ß«$¤¤Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ýà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman œÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ )ÝÝ  ÝÌÌÌ,,,,'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Courier New d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò% Line 7 d....7Border 1dd€-/Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial 2Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÔ€1ÔÔ€1ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€1XÔÌÌAugustÏ26,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó éÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€(ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€+ÔÔ€+ôÔThe€statute€of€limitations€was€not€specifically€pled€by€theÏdefendants,€but€it€was€relied€upon€by€the€defendants€in€their€brief€andÏargument,€there€was€no€objection€by€the€plaintiff,€and€it€was€the€basisÏfor€dismissal€of€the€complaint€by€the€trial€court.€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€''X„d&ÓÑ#€''Xd#ÑÔ€(ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  Ý›Ñ , ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ûXXdÈdÈ7ÑÖ€)ÖÑ  ќԀ+Ôà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAugust€26,€1996Ì›à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURTÏOF€TENNESSEEÌ̜ـ€ÙÙ€€ÙßL€02/;+'h|X4` à. `€€Lß›à@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÌOLD€HICKORY€ENGINEERING€&à à(ÌMACHINE€COMPANY,€INC.,à àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àPlaintiff„Appellee,à àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€SumnerÏCircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà à(€€Hon.ÏThomas€Goodall,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€€No.Ï0lS01„9507„CV„103Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(ÌPHILLIP€HENRY€AND€JEFF€à àà à(ÌSHEPARD,à àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àDefendants„Appellants.à à(ÌÌÌÌœòòFor›€Plaintiff„Appelleeóó:à àà àà àòòForÏDefendants„Appellantsóó:ÌÌœJohn€M.€Cannonà àà àà àà àà àJoseph›ÏY.€Longmire,€Jr.à àœn›ÌœCannon,›€Cannon€&€œCooper,à àà àà àJones,ÏLongmire€&€Sindle›€Ìœ€ÍP.C.à àà àà àà àà àà àGoodlettsvilleÌGoodlettsville›ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌ̛̜ÌJUDGMENT€OF€COURT€OF€APPEALS€ÌREVERSED;€CASE€DISMISSED.à àà àà àà àREID,€J.ÇÓÓÓ` °‚X.h—XÓà àThis€case€presents€for€review€the€decision€of€theÏCourt€of€Appeals€reversing€the€trial€court's€dismissal€of€theÏcomplaint.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€held€that€the€complaint,Ïwhich€was€signed€only€by€the€non„lawyer€president€of€theÏcorporate€plaintiff,€was€"not€void"€and€that€the€subsequentÏappearance€of€a€lawyer€on€behalf€of€the€plaintiff€"correctedÏthe€defect"€in€the€pleading.€€That€court€ordered€that€the€suitÏbe€allowed€to€proceed€to€trial€even€though€the€complaint€wasÏfiled€on€the€last€day€permitted€by€the€savings€statute,€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€28„1„105€(Supp.€1995).€€The€decision€by€the€CourtÏof€Appeals€is€reversed.ÌÌà@ àòòò òTHE€CASEóóó óÌÌà àA€complaint€asserting€a€cause€of€action€based€onÏnegligence€was€filed€by€the€plaintiff,€Old€Hickory€EngineeringÏand€Machine€Company,€Inc.,€on€November2,€1990.€€The€complaintÏwas€prepared€and€signed€by€an€attorney€representing€theÏplaintiff.€€On€March15,€1993,€the€plaintiff€took€a€non„suit.€ÏOn€the€anniversary€of€the€non„suit,€a€complaint€almostÏidentical€to€the€original€complaint€was€signed€and€filed€byÍthe€non„lawyer€president€of€the€plaintiff€corporation.€€TheÏdefendants€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss.€€More€than€two€monthsÏafter€the€complaint€was€filed,€an€attorney€filed€a€notice€ofÏappearance€on€behalf€of€the€plaintiff.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€found€the€filing€of€the€complaint€toÏbe€"void"€and€ordered€the€complaint€"dismissed€withÏprejudice."€€The€Court€of€Appeals€treated€the€absence€ofÏcounsel€as€a€"deficiency"€which€was€"cured"€by€the€subsequentÏnotice€of€appearance€by€an€attorney€on€behalf€of€theÏplaintiff.€€ÌÌà@ àòòò òANALYSISóóó óÌÌà àThe€cause€of€action€is€time„barred€unless€the€suitÏwas€commenced€on€the€date€the€complaint€signed€by€theÏpresident€of€the€plaintiff€corporation€was€filed.× ƒ3 ××  ×€€TheÏTennessee€savings€statute,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€28„1„105,Íprovides€in€pertinent€part:ÌÌÓÓà8 àò òNew€action€after€adverse€decisionó ó.€.Ï.€.„„€(a)€If€the€action€is€commencedÏwithin€the€time€limited€by€a€rule€orÏstatute€of€limitation,€but€the€judgmentÏor€decree€is€rendered€against€theÏplaintiff€upon€any€ground€not€concludingÏthe€plaintiff's€right€of€action,€or€whereÏthe€judgment€or€decree€is€rendered€inÏfavor€of€the€plaintiff,€and€is€arrested,Ïor€reversed€on€appeal,€the€plaintiff,€orÏthe€plaintiff's€representatives€andÏprivies,€as€the€case€may€be,€may,€fromÏtime€to€time,€commence€a€new€actionÏwithin€one€(1)€year€after€the€reversal€orÏarrest.€.€.€.€ÌÌÌÌÓÓIn€òòBalsinger€v.€Gassóó,€214€Tenn.€343,€353,€379€S.W.2d€800,€805Ï(1964),€this€Court€held€that€"all€actions€which€may€be€broughtÏby€virtue€of€[the€above]€statute€must€be€brought€within€oneÏyear€after€the€inconclusive€dismissal€of€an€action€broughtÏwithin€the€period€of€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations."ÌÌà àThe€determinative€issue€is€whether€"a€new€action"Ïwas€commenced.€€An€action€is€commenced€by€filing€a€complaint.€ÏRule€3,€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€provides:ÌÌÓÓà8 àAll€civil€actions€are€commenced€by€filingÏa€complaint€and€summons€with€the€clerk€ofÏthe€Court.€€An€action€is€commenced€withinÏthe€meaning€of€any€statute€of€limitationsÏupon€such€filing€of€a€complaint€andÏsummons,€whether€process€be€issued€or€notÏissued€and€whether€process€be€returnedÏserved€or€unserved€.€.€.€.ÌÓÓÌÌòòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€18€Tenn.€Juris.€òòLimitation€of€Actionsóó€ðð€44€(1984).ÌConsequently,€a€new€action€was€commenced€if€a€complaint€wasÏfiled.€€ÌÌà àThe€formality€of€filing€pleadings€is€controlled€byÏRule11,€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€Prior€to€itsÏamendment€in€1995,€that€rule€provided€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 à€€€€€Every€pleading,€motion,€and€otherÏpaper€of€a€party€represented€by€anÏattorney€shall€be€signed€by€at€least€oneÏattorney€of€record€in€his€individualÏname,€whose€address€shall€be€stated.€€AÏparty€who€is€not€represented€by€anÏattorney€shall€sign€his€pleading,€motion,Ïor€other€paper€and€state€his€address.€ÏExcept€when€otherwise€specificallyÏprovided€by€rule€or€statute,€pleadingsÏneed€not€be€verified€or€accompanied€byÏaffidavit.€€The€rule€in€equity€that€theÏaverments€of€an€answer€under€oath€must€beÏovercome€by€the€testimony€of€twoÍwitnesses€or€of€one€witness€sustained€byÏcorroborating€circumstances€is€abolished.€ÏThe€signature€of€an€attorney€or€partyÏconstitutes€a€certificate€by€him€that€heÏhas€read€the€pleading,€motion,€or€otherÏpaper;€that€to€the€best€of€his€knowledge,Ïinformation,€and€belief€formed€afterÏreasonable€inquiry,€it€is€well€groundedÏin€fact€and€is€warranted€by€existing€lawÏor€a€good€faith€argument€for€theÏextension,€modification,€or€reversal€ofÏexisting€law,€and€that€it€is€notÏinterposed€for€any€improper€purpose,€suchÏas€to€harass€or€to€cause€unnecessaryÏdelay€or€needless€increase€in€the€cost€ofÏlitigation.€.€.€.ÌÌÓÓÌThis€rule€makes€the€signing€of€a€pleading€by€an€attorney€ofÏrecord€or€the€party€an€essential€condition€to€the€validity€ofÏa€pleading.€€ÌÌà àThe€plaintiff's€insistence,€that€the€signing€of€theÏcomplaint€by€its€president€constitutes€compliance€with€RuleÏ11's€provision€that€a€pleading€may€be€signed€by€the€party,€isÏnot€consistent€with€policy€or€precedent.€€A€corporation€is€anÏartificial€entity,€which€"cannot€act€or€speak€except€throughÏnatural€persons€duly€authorized."€€òòGreat€Am.€Indem.€Co.€v.ÏUtility€Contractors,€Inc.óó,€21€Tenn.€App.€463,€471,€111€S.W.2dÏ901,€907€(Tenn.€App.€1937).€€Since€a€corporation€is€an€entityÍseparate€and€distinct€from€its€officers€and€shareholders,€theÏprovision€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€23„1„109€(1994),€that€"[a]nyÏperson€may€conduct€and€manage€the€person's€own€case€in€anyÏcourt€of€this€state,"€is€not€applicable€to€corporations,€evenÏwhen€the€person€undertaking€to€act€for€the€corporation€is€anÏofficer€or€a€shareholder.€€9A€William€M.€Fletcher,€òòFletcherÏCyclopedia€of€the€Law€of€Private€Corporationsóó€ðð€4463€(òòperm.óóÏòòed.óó€òòrev.óó€1992).€€òòSeeóó€òògenerallyóó€Annotation,€òòPropriety€andÏEffect€of€Corporation's€Appearance€Pro€Se€Through€Agent€Who€isÏNot€Attorneyóó,€8€A.L.R.5th€653€(l992).€€The€conclusion€is€thatÏthe€corporate€plaintiff€in€this€case€was€not€acting€òòproóó€òòseóó€inÏfiling€the€complaint.€€ÌÌà àAllowing€the€president€of€the€corporation€to€makeÏthe€affirmations€required€by€Rule€11€would€constitute€theÏunauthorized€practice€of€law.€€The€rule€and€the€policyÏconsideration€are€well€stated€in€òòThird€National€Bank€inÏNashville€v.€Celebrate€Yourself€Productions,€Inc.óó,€807€S.W.2dÏ704€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990).€€In€that€case,€the€court€declinedÏto€allow€two€shareholders€of€a€closely€held€corporation,€whoÏwere€not€attorneys,€to€represent€the€corporation€in€a€bank'sÍaction€for€default€of€a€promissory€note.€€The€bank€had€filedÏsuit€against€the€corporation,€as€well€as€its€threeÏshareholders€who€were€guarantors€of€the€corporation's€note.€ÏThe€shareholders€contended€that€by€preventing€them€fromÏrepresenting€the€indigent€corporation,€it€was€denied€dueÏprocess.€€Finding€no€merit€to€this€argument,€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€held:ÌÌÓÓà8 à€€€€€The€purpose€of€our€statutesÏregulating€the€practice€of€law€is€toÏprevent€the€public's€being€preyed€upon€byÏthose€who,€for€valuable€consideration,Ïseek€to€perform€services€which€requireÏskill,€training€and€character,€withoutÏadequate€qualifications.€€òòHavertyÏFurniture€Co.€v.€Foustóó,€174€Tenn.€203,Ï124€S.W.2d€694€(1939).€€When€aÏcorporation€is€a€party€to€a€lawsuit,Ïthese€statutes€imply€a€representationÏthat€is€distinct€from€an€officer€or€otherÏcorporate€employee.€€òòId.óó€at€214,€124ÏS.W.2d€694.€€It€is€well€established€thatÏa€corporation€cannot€practice€law,€norÏcan€it€employ€a€licensed€practitioner€toÏpractice€for€it.€€òòState€ex€rel.€Loser€v.ÏNational€Optical€Stores€Co.óó,€189€Tenn.Ï433,€225€S.W.2d€263€[1949];€òòState€v.ÏRetail€Credit€Men's€Ass'nóó,€163€Tenn.€450,Ï43€S.W.2d€918€(1931).ÌÌà8 à€€€€€To€allow€[the€shareholders]€to€actÏas€legal€representatives€of€[theÏcorporation]€in€this€lawsuit€would€be€aÏdirect€violation€of€the€rules€of€ourÍSupreme€Court€which€provide:ÌÌÓ` °‚X†À–XÓà8 àNo€person€shall€engage€in€theÏ"practice€of€law"€or€the€"lawÏbusiness"€in€Tennessee,€exceptÏpursuant€to€the€authority€ofÏthis€court,€as€evidenced€by€aÏlicense€issued€in€accordanceÏwith€this€Rule,€or€inÏaccordance€with€the€provisionsÏof€this€Rule€governing€specialÏor€limited€practice.ÌÓ` °‚X.À–XÓÌà8 àTenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€7,€ðð€1.01.ÌÌÌÌòòId.óó€at€706„707.€€ÌÓÓà8 à€ÌÌà àThe€preparation€and€filing€of€a€complaint€requiresÏ"the€professional€judgment€of€a€lawyer,"€and€is,€therefore,Ïthe€practice€of€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòPetition€of€Bursonóó,€909€S.W.2d€768,Ï776€(Tenn.€1995).€€In€reaffirming€its€adherence€to€the€commonÏlaw€rule€prohibiting€a€non„attorney€agent€from€appearing€inÏcourt€on€behalf€of€a€corporation,€the€Supreme€Court€ofÏMinnesota€explained€the€rule's€underlying€rationale:ÌÌÓÓà8 àA€non„attorney€agent€of€a€corporation€isÏnot€subject€to€the€ethical€standards€ofÏthe€bar€and€is€not€subject€to€courtÏsupervision€or€discipline.€€The€agentÍknows€but€one€master,€the€corporation,Ïand€owes€no€duty€to€the€courts.€€InÏaddition,€a€corporation€is€an€artificialÏentity€which€can€only€act€through€agents.€ÏTo€permit€a€lay€individual€to€appear€onÏbehalf€of€a€corporation€would€be€toÏpermit€that€individual€to€practice€lawÏwithout€a€license.ÌÓÓÌÌòòNicollet€Restoration,€Inc.€v.€Turnhamóó,€486€N.W.2d€753,€754Ï(Minn.€1992).€ÌÌà àThe€conclusion€is€that€a€corporation€cannot€act€òòproóóÏòòseóó€in€a€court€proceeding€nor€can€it€be€represented€by€anÏofficer€or€other€non„lawyer€agent.€€ÌÌà àThe€next€issue€is€the€effectiveness€of€the€deficientÏcomplaint€filed€by€the€plaintiff's€president.€€The€answer€toÏthat€question€is€found€in€the€amendment€to€Rule€11,€whichÏbecame€effective€on€July1,€1995.€€Although€that€amendment€isÏnot€applicable€to€this€case,€it€is€declarative€of€the€policyÏand€practice€regulating€court€proceedings€in€that€particular.€ÏThe€amendment€provides:ÌÌÓÓà8 àAn€unsigned€paper€shall€be€strickenÏunless€omission€of€the€signature€isÏcorrected€promptly€after€being€called€toÏthe€attention€of€the€attorney€or€party.ò òÌÌÌÓÓó óÌBased€on€the€principle€declared€by€this€amendment,€the€statusÏof€the€complaint€on€the€date€it€was€filed€was€as€though€itÏcontained€no€signature,€and,€because€of€that€deficiency,€itÏwas€subject€to€being€stricken€from€the€record.€€TheÏconstruction€most€favorable€to€the€plaintiff€in€this€case€isÏthat€the€plaintiff€was€notified€of€the€fatal€deficiency€in€theÏcomplaint€by€the€defendant's€motion€to€dismiss€on€April13,Ï1994,€and€the€plaintiff€took€no€action€until€its€attorneyÏfiled€a€notice€of€appearance€on€May20,€1994.€€That€is€notÏ"prompt"€action.€€In€addition,€filing€notice€of€appearance€didÏnot€correct€the€deficiency.€€Merely€advising€the€court€ofÏrepresentation€did€not€constitute€the€certification€requiredÏby€the€rule.€€The€action€by€the€plaintiff's€lawyer€did€notÏcure€the€deficiency€in€time€or€substance.€€ÌÌà@ àòòò òCONCLUSIONóóó óÌÌà àThe€complaint€was€not€filed€by€the€corporateÏplaintiff€òòproóó€òòseóó;€the€corporation's€president€did€not€have€theÏlegal€authority€to€make€the€Rule€11€certification;€and€theÏdefect€in€the€filing€was€not€cured.€€ÌÌà àThe€decision€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€is€reversed,Ïand€the€case€is€dismissed.ÌÌà àCosts€are€taxed€against€Old€Hickory€Engineering€&ÏMachine€Co.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àà àREID,€J.ÌÌConcur:ÌÌBirch,€C.J.,€Drowota,€Anderson,Ì€€€and€White,€JJ.€