Super 8 Motel v. Director, Department of Workforce Services, and Hannah Young
This text of 2019 Ark. App. 555 (Super 8 Motel v. Director, Department of Workforce Services, and Hannah Young) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Cite as 2019 Ark. App. 555 Digitally signed by Elizabeth ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS Perry Date: 2022.08.08 11:47:27 DIVISION III -05'00' No. E-19-171 Adobe Acrobat version: 2022.001.20169 Opinion Delivered: November 20, 2019
SUPER 8 MOTEL APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS BOARD OF REVIEW V. [NO. 2019-BR-00569] DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES, AND HANNAH YOUNG DISMISSED APPELLEES
MIKE MURPHY, Judge
Appellant Super 8 Motel (Super 8) appeals from the Arkansas Board of Review’s
June 27, 2019 decision finding that the claimant, Hannah Young, was entitled to benefits
because she was discharged from last work for reasons other than misconduct. We dismiss
due to a lack of jurisdiction.
Super 8 filed its petition for appeal with this court on July 24, 2019. The notice of
appeal was not signed by an attorney but instead was signed by the general manager for the
appellant’s motel, Tameka Thomas.
It is well-settled law that corporations must be represented by licensed attorneys.
Bank of Fayetteville NA v. Dir., 2016 Ark. App. 96. Furthermore, our supreme court has
held that when a party not licensed to practice law in this state attempts to represent the
interests of others by submitting to the jurisdiction of a court, those actions, such as the
filing of pleadings, are rendered a nullity. Id. Here, Thomas indicated on the petition for review that Super 8 was not represented
by an attorney, and she signed the petition. Because Thomas is not an attorney, she may
not represent Super 8 in this case. Id. Our case law makes it clear that invoking the process
of a court of law constitutes the practice of law. Steel v. Dir., 2016 Ark. App. 377. Because
Thomas was practicing law when she signed the petition, the petition is null and void. Id.
As a result, we lack jurisdiction and dismiss this appeal.
Dismissed.
SWITZER and VAUGHT, JJ., agree.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2019 Ark. App. 555, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/super-8-motel-v-director-department-of-workforce-services-and-hannah-arkctapp-2019.