Capacity to sue and standing are distinct, and also have different procedural implications

 

CORPORATIONS’ CAPACITY TO SUE VS. STANDING

   

A corporation's authority to bring a lawsuit on a claim is an issue of capacity, not standing to sue. See El T. Mexican Rests., Inc. v. Bacon, 921 S.W.2d 247, 249 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied) (capacity is a party's legal authority to go into court to prosecute or defend a suit). A party must challenge a corporation's capacity to file suit by a verified denial under rule 93. See id.; see also Sixth RMA Partners v. Sibley, 111 S.W.3d 46, 56 (Tex. 2003) (“When capacity is contested, Rule 93 requires that a verified plea be filed unless the truth of the matter appears of record.”).

  

SOURCE:  DALLAS COURT OF APPEALS - 05-10-00725-CV – 4/27/12

  

Gutierrez's first three issues claim TWLF could not recover on the contract because its corporate privileges were forfeited by the secretary of state in 2004 for non-payment of franchise taxes. Gutierrez did not raise these arguments in a verified denial under rule 93; instead he raised them for the first time in a supplemental motion for new trial filed more than thirty days after the judgment was signed. Thus, the issues were not timely raised in the trial court and are not preserved for appeal. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 93(1), (2), (6), 329b(b); Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a).

   

Gutierrez argues this is an issue of standing to sue and can be raised at any time. We disagree.

Gutierrez v. Wright Lawfirm, PLLC, No. 05-10-00725-CV, 2012 WL 1898950 (Tex. App.-Dallas Apr. 27, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.)