Opinion
No. 01-08-00292-CV
Opinion issued March 11, 2010.
On Appeal from the 165th District Court Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2006-46711.
Panel consists of Justices KEYES, SHARP, and MASSENGALE.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Yahvah thru His "Yahweh Kingdom People" ekklesia via "Y.K.P." kingdom corporation sole Ambassador Claude Hugh Lloyd the Second of Yahvah YahvahShua YahvahRuach and Ambassador Cassondra Jean Lloyd of Yahvah YahvahShua YahvahRuach, seeks to appeal the trial court's award of summary judgment in favor of Harris County and the other appellee taxing authorities in this suit for recovery of delinquent taxes against Yahweh Kingdom People, a Texas non-profit corporation. Appellant argues in nine issues that the final summary judgment of the trial court should be set aside.
We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Background
Yahweh Kingdom People, a non-profit corporation, owns property in a subdivision in Harris County, Texas, with the legal description of Lot 47 of Whispering Pines, Section One. On July 31, 2006, Harris County, on behalf of itself and other county-wide taxing authorities the Harris County Education Department, the Port of Houston Authority of Harris County, the Harris County Flood Control District, and the Harris County Hospital District (collectively "Harris County") filed suit against Yahweh Kingdom People seeking to recover $24,484.09 in delinquent taxes on the property. The petition recited that Yahweh Kingdom People was "a Texas Non-Profit Corporation, upon whom service may be obtained by serving its Registered Agent, Claude Hugh Lloyd, Jr." Harris County also joined the City of Baytown, Goose Creek Consolidated Independent School District, and Lee College District as parties that "may have a claim and lien for delinquent taxes against all or part of the same property."
Yahweh Kingdom People is the name of the corporation that is the record owner ofthe property and is the defendant in the suit filed by Harris County. Claude Lloyd, the designated agent of Yahweh Kingdom People, and his wife Cassondra Lloyd filed an answer to the Harris County suit under the name "Yahweh Yahvah Shua Yahvah Ruach via His Yahweh Kingdom People, `Y.K.P.' corporation, sole ambassador Claude Hugh Lloyd the Second of Yahvah Yahvah Shua Yahvah Ruachand Ambassador Cassondra Jean Lloyd of Yahvah Yahvah Shua Yahvah Ruach." Subsequent documents were also filed in this same name with some slight variations, e.g., spelling "Yahweh" as "Yahvah." We refer to the parties involved exactly as they were referred to in the documents we discuss.
Harris County attempted to serve notice on Yahweh Kingdom People by serving Lloyd, but the service was returned with the deputy's notes stating that he attempted service on six separate occasions and that, at each attempt, Lloyd was home but would not answer the door. Harris County amended its pleadings to include service through the Texas Secretary of State, and that service was returned unclaimed. On May 31, 2007, Claude Lloyd, the registered agent of Yahweh Kingdom People, and his wife Cassondra Lloyd filed a "General Denial and Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction," purportedly on behalf of "Yahweh." The trial court subsequently set aside a previous summary judgment and set the cause for a new hearing.
Harris County, on behalf of itself and the other taxing authorities, filed an amended motion for summary judgment on December 18, 2007. After holding another hearing at which all parties appeared, the trial court signed its Amended Final Summary Judgment granting Harris County's motion for summary judgment on January 14, 2008. The final summary judgment stated,
The defendant(s) are as follows:
Yahweh Kingdom People aka Yahvah YahvahShua YahvahRuach thru his "Yahweh Kingdom People" Ekklesia (religious assembly) via Yahvah's "Y.K.P." kingdom corporation sole, Ambassador Claude Hugh Lloyd the Second of YahvahShua YahvahRuach and Ambassador Cassondra Jean Lloyd of Yahvah YahvahShua YahvahRuach, who has answered and has been duly notified of trial and who has appeared in court.
On February 18, 2008, the Lloyds filed a motion for new trial, again purportedly on behalf of "Yahvah." On April 14, 2008, the Lloyds signed a notice of appeal that stated, "Yahvah thru [sic] His `Yahweh Kingdom People' ekklesia via `Y.K.P.' kingdom corporation sole Ambassador Claude Hugh Lloyd the Second of Yahvah YahvahShua YahvahRuach and Ambassador Cassondra Jean Lloyd of Yahvah YahvahShua YahvahRuach hereby gives Notice of Appeal of Yahvah's Demand in Comity for New Trial and to Set Aside/Vacate the Courts `Amended Fraudulent Summary Judgment' signed January 14, 2008."
The Lloyds have filed other documents in this appeal under the name "Yavah thru His `Yahweh Kingdom People' ekklesia via `Y.K.P.' kingdom corporation sole Ambassador Claude Hugh Lloyd the Second of Yahvah Yahvah Shua Yahvah Ruachand Ambassador Cassondra Jean Lloyd of Yahvah Yahvah Shua Yahvah Ruach."
Analysis
Only parties to an action have standing to appeal. Cont'l Cas. Co v. Huizar, 740 S.W.2d 429, 430 (Tex. 1987). Standing is implicit in the concept of subject matter jurisdiction, and subject matter jurisdiction is essential to the authority of a court to decide a case. Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 443 (Tex. 1993). Because the notice of appeal was taken in the name of "Yahvah," we lack subject matter jurisdiction because Yahvah was not a party to the judgment in the trial court. We further note that the corporation that was a party to the judgment of the trial court, Yahweh Kingdom People, did not file a timely, valid notice of appeal. The Lloyds, who are not licensed attorneys, signed the notice of appeal on Yahvah's behalf as his ambassadors, but they are not authorized to represent Yahvah, Yahweh Kingdom People, or any other entity or person besides themselves in legal proceedings. See Dell Dev. Corp. v. Best Indus. Uniform Supply Co., 743 S.W.2d 302, 303 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, writ denied) ("Corporations may appear and be represented only by a licensed attorney."); see also Crain v. Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm., 11 S.W.3d 328, 332-34 (Tex. App.-Houston 1999, pet. denied) (explaining that person who is not licensed attorney may not represent other persons in legal matters); Globe Leasing, Inc. v. Engine Supply Mach. Serv., 437 S.W.2d 43, 45 (Tex. Civ. App.-Houston 1969, no writ) (holding that even if corporation's president had given timely notice of appeal from judgment against corporation, such notice would be ineffective when president representing corporation was not licensed attorney and stating that "corporation may not appear in court through its officers who are not attorneys"). The deadline for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional and has passed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(b), 26.1; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997).
Therefore, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Conclusion
We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.