Judges on a federal appeals court have unanimously dismissed a class-action lawsuit against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the tithing-relatd claims were filed past the legal deadline.
The Three-Year Statute of Limitations Ends the Tithing Dispute
Judges Harris Hartz, Gregory Phillips, and Nancy Moritz concluded that the plaintiffs failed to meet the legally required timeframe for their claims. The court found that the district court was correct in its assessment that the individuals involved should have been aware of the information motivating their lawsuits more than three years prior to filing.
The consolidated case involved four separate lawsuits brought by nine individuals, including Daniel Chappell,John Oaks, and Masen Christensen. As the report states, these lawsuits were originally filed in Utah, California, Tennessee, and Washington before being brought together in Salt Lake City.
A String of Victories from the City Creek Project to Laura Gaddy
This decision represents the third major legal win for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in a twenty-month period. The church has successfully defended itself against similar allegations in recent months, maintaining its institutional standing in federal court.
Previous legal successes include a case brought by James Huntsman, where the court found no evidence that the church misrepresented funds related to the City Creek project.. Additionally, a case involving Laura Gaddy was dismissed after the court rejected claims regarding misrepresented history and religious practices.
The 10th Circuit's Avoidance of the Church Autonomy Doctrine
The appellate court's decision relied on technical procedural grounds rather than addressing the substantive issue of religious governance. By focusing on the statute of limitations, the judges avoided setting a high-court precedent regarding the church autonomy doctrine.
The church autonomy doctrine generally allows religious organizations to manage their own policies and fund allocations without judicial interference. According to the source, legal experts and organizations like the Southern Baptist Convention and the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty have previously characterized these types of lawsuits as threats to religious authority.
The Unresolved Claims of Fraudulent Inducement
While the legal battle has concluded, the specific allegations regarding how tithing funds are managed remain unverified by the court. The plaintiffs had argued that the church used fraudulent means to inuce donations and engaged in illegal enrichment by withholding the true purpose of those funds.
Church spokesperson Sam Penrod has maintained that tithing donations are expressions of faith managed under the direction of senior leaders. Because the case was dismissed with prejudice,the plaintiffs are prevented from refiling these specific claims, leaving the question of financial transparency for the institution largely unanswered in a legal setting.
Comments 0