James huntsman (jon's brother) sues church for 'fraud'

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

I am curious why it did this.  Perhaps things are handled differently in California federal courts. 

Perhaps it hopes to preempt future similar attempts?

I would think that preemption would work better by filing a Motion to Dismiss.  The Church, I think, already has a pretty good track record of prevailing on such motions in this context.  The Huntsman lawsuit is legally problematic because it runs afoul of the "abstention doctrine," that is, that the courts are generally prohibited under the First Amendment from interfering with religious groups in terms of their internal governance, doctrines, etc.  A seasoned attorney, having done some due diligence and being aware of both the substantive law about this doctrine and about the Church's history of successfully using it to defeat frivolous lawsuits, would perhaps be a bit more circumspect in considering litigation.  It can be somewhat embarrassing for a plaintiff's lawyer to lose the case on a Motion to Dismiss, which is supposed to be a difficult motion to have granted.  The plaintiff losing the case in such a context can therefore carry a vibe of "Boy, that lawsuit was so poorly drafted it couldn't even get out of the chute before getting dismissed."

It may also be worth noting that the two lawyers who are listed on Huntsman's Complaint, David Jonelis and Jake Camara, are not partners at their firm.  My experience has been that a partner at a firm is typically assigned to and listed in a lawsuit where the other side is a heavy hitter.  That did not happen here.  Also, David has 12 years of experience, and Jake has six.  So the law firm is not exactly bringing their A Game.  Also, the law firm bills itself on the front page of its website as being in "Entertainment Litigation."  From the firm's "Profile" section:

Quote

LAVELY & SINGER Professional Corporation is one of the world's premier talent-side entertainment litigation firms. The firm's practice encompasses entertainment and business litigation in State and Federal Courts, including intellectual property, copyright and trademark litigation, media law, right of publicity and privacy law, defamation, contract disputes, business torts, Internet-domain name law, and in matters before specialized tribunals such as the California Labor Commissioner proceedings and the arbitration boards of the Hollywood talent guilds.

Huh.  So filing a lawsuit against a religious group seems to be something not quite within their wheelhouse.

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Recycling arguments is not unknown among the critics of the Church. 

Consider this Forbes article about Wal-Mart's general litigation strategy:

Quote

Give Wal-Mart Stores credit for one thing--the company certainly doesn't scare easily.

The world's dominant retailer has been facing a tidal wave of negativity--from community activists trying to keep its stores out of their neighborhoods, to local governments mandating that Wal-Mart supply workers with health insurance, to opportunistic lawyers trying to strike it rich by bringing on endless lawsuits. Critics--many of whom are as financially motivated as Wal-Mart is--are accusing the company of everything from discriminating against women, to mistreating illegal aliens, to denying overtime pay. Thousands of customers who slip and fall in a store aisle are also trying to reach into the company's deep pockets.

And with Wal-Mart's stock price stuck in neutral for the past five years, some shareholders are asking whether it's time to throw in the towel by settling most of these suits and getting back to minding the stores. ... Is it time for the company to yield rather than battle?

The answer is no, from a broad cross section of observers of the company's litigation strategy. Management experts say the company's strategy of confronting the charges head-on while not wavering from its low-price business model is the most effective formula over the long haul.

"When you're just about the largest company in the world, it's tough to breathe without offending someone," said Kathryn Harrigan, a professor at Columbia Business School.
...
Indeed, suing Wal-Mart is now a cottage industry, with some 5,000 lawsuits filed against the company each year.
...
The message is clear. To some, the American dream is no longer just about being successful, it's about not being too successful. Or it's about being successful enough for others to leech off of you.

The company is generally loath to settle all but the smallest suits, opting instead to take on plaintiffs' complaints while hammering home its message of "Everyday Low Prices" to the public. The more serious class-action complaints, each of which can potentially result in hundreds of millions of dollars in liability, are complaints the company has decided it won't take lying down.

Larry McQuillan, a director at the Pacific Resource Institute, a free-market think tank, said fighting the lawsuits makes the most long-term sense, based on building momentum for tort reform, and because winning some of these cases would deter more organizations from filing suits. The trial bar's strategy against corporate America up to now has been to file a suit, depress the stock price and bring the company to the table to get a settlement out of it, he said.

"Wal-Mart has been a leader in not bowing to those pressures, unlike many companies that are afraid of bad publicity and want to settle," McQuillan said. "If you don't defend yourself early on, and be persistent, you will be steamrolled."

Obviously Wal-Mart is not identially situated to the Church.  But there is some overlap.  The Church also finds it "tough to breathe without offending someone."  Suing the Church has the risk of becoming "a cottage industry."  There are people in our society who are pretty eager to "reach into the {Church's} deep pockets" and "leech off of" it.  There are strategies used by lawyers that are designed to create negative publicity for the Church so as to bring it "to the table and get a settlement out of it."

The Church, I think, needs to vigorously defend itself in Court and it needs to do so "early on, and be persistent" because otherwise it runs the risk of being "steamrolled" by opportunists and idealogues bent on using lawfare to punish the Church.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

Quote

There are strategies used by lawyers that are designed to create negative publicity for the Church so as to bring it "to the table and get a settlement out of it."

Given Denson’s history with lawsuits (swallowing a razor blade at a restaurant), that one appears an obvious settlement strategy imo. I was expecting others to follow originally before I found out about her history, but either they haven’t been publicized first and quickly settled or what happened put a damper on expectations.

Otoh, have been surprised by the ones that followed in Phillips’ footsteps as that seems a no brainer no matter how he painted the willingness of the court to judge contrary to what most legal experts were saying, but perhaps the publicity was enough of a reward for copycats. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

For those who did not read the article like me before wondering about the above:

Seems rather stupid of Huntsman to make the claim when it could be easily disproved to the court.  Or maybe he was fishing to find out what records are kept after resigning.  But that doesn’t really make sense because donation records could be kept when others are not because of taxes and we already know significant records are kept because of what happens in cases of people being rebaptized. 

Maybe he didn't think that the church would move forward and actually take it to trial if necessary?  He might have been under the belief that Pres. Oaks' "never go to trial if you can help it' would work in his favor, allowing him to disparage the church vocally and in the papers with little threat that he's be held accountable or have to prove his statements.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I would imagine that, since the church is disputing the amount, it would have to be part of the court record. 

In general, the plaintiff has the burden of proof for such an alegation.

Huntsman would have to show his records.  Only after his records were produced showing his contributions, would the burden of proof shift to the church to show  that his records were incorrect or fraudulent.

 

The church's denial, in a legal sense is a challenge to the plantiff to show their evidence.  If no evidence appears from Huntsman, the church would not have to produce anything.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Danzo

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, Danzo said:

In general, the plaintiff has the burden of proof for such an alegation.

Huntsman would have to show his records.  Only after his records were produced showing his contributions, would the burden of proof shift to the church to show  that his records were incorrect or fraudulent.

 

The church's denial, in a legal sense is a challenge to the plantiff to show their evidence.  If no evidence appears from Huntsman, the church would not have to produce anything.

That's pretty much what I thought.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

In general, the plaintiff has the burden of proof for such an alegation.

Huntsman would have to show his records.  Only after his records were produced showing his contributions, would the burden of proof shift to the church to show  that his records were incorrect or fraudulent.

 

The church's denial, in a legal sense is a challenge to the plantiff to show their evidence.  If no evidence appears from Huntsman, the church would not have to produce anything.

That removes the concern the Church might make someone’s tithing records public if it suited them...which could cause some backlash or rethinking of tithing amount I am guessing.  

[mgy401]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Anyhoo, back to the topic...

In a move that is sort of surprising to me, the Church has filed an Answer to Huntsman's Complaint, rather than a Motion to Dismiss:

I am curious why it did this.  Perhaps things are handled differently in California federal courts.  

When a lawsuit is filed a defendant can respond to it in a few ways.

The first option is to file a response to it (an "Answer").  This allows the lawsuit to proceed into its next phase, discovery, in which the parties exchange information, conduct depositions, gather evidence and so on.  The discovery phase is typically the longest and most expensive part of a lawsuit.  It is also the most intrusive, in that each side can use the power of the courts to compel the other side to answer questions, produce documents and evidence, and so on.  For these reasons a defendant who feels a lawsuit is frivolous or otherwise legally deficient can, if circumstances allow, forego filing an Answer in favor of the second option.

The second opion is to file a "Motion to Dismiss."  This motion is a procedural mechanism in which the defendant admits, for the purposes of the motion only, that the facts as alleged in the Complaint are true, but that the Complaint should nevertheless be dismissed based on the law.  If a Motion to Dismiss is granted, then the lawsuit ends prior to discovery and trial.  However, such a motion can be procedurally difficult because a good plaintiff's lawyer will attempt to draft the complaint in such a way as to render it immune from a motion to dismiss.  Nevertheless, motions to dismiss are quite common.  The Church's lawyers have used them, largely successfully, in the McKenna Denson case, the Laura Gaddy case, and others.  

I would have thought that the Huntsman Complaint should have prompted a Motion to Dismiss.  It is possible that the attorneys felt such a motion had no chance of success, and so just went ahead and filed an Answer.  Alternatively, the Church and its attorneys decided to let the case proceed so that the Church can hash out the issues presented in the Complaint.  This would be somewhat surprising, as the Church is, quite sensibly, averse to litigation.  If it has the opportunity to avoid or shorten a lawsuit, it usually takes it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Given that even the SL Trib acknowledges the suit has more PR value than legal merit, the Church may have decided it wanted to avoid the optics of a 12(b)(6) argument that would have basically said “look, even if we are a false religion, and even if we lied to you about where your donation went, and even if City Creek *was* funded by tithes—we have a right to do that; so nanny nanny boo boo, so long, and thanks for all the fish”.

This way the Church gets to avoid being stuck making that argument, gets to see Huntsman publicly embarrassed when his claims turn out to be false, gets to put him and his attorneys (who as you hint, seem out of their depth) through the ordeal of discovery, and—because of Huntsman’s profession and financial status—has an excellent chance of getting a collectible judgment attorney’s fees (and maybe even Rule 11 sanctions) when it’s all over.  The only drawback is that through the discovery process, additional detail about the Church’s own finances may become public; and if the Church’s books are in order, it may well conclude that the general nature of the Church’s holdings are already known and that any additional publicity over the release of additional detail at this point is an acceptable price to pay.

By the way—did anyone catch the answer’s statement that the corporation sole formerly known as the Corporation of the President of the CoJCoLDS is now known simply as “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”, a corporation sole which conducts the affairs of a religious organization of the same name?  What does this mean for the structure of the Church’s financial affairs?  If the Corporation of the President is now defunct, does the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop still exist?  What kind of corporate consolidation/restructuring has been happening lately?

Edited May 6, 2021 by mgy401

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

What does this mean for the structure of the Church’s financial affairs?  If the Corporation of the President is now defunct, does the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop still exist?  What kind of corporate consolidation/restructuring has been happening lately?

So, my teenage son and his friend, in a stupid teenage move, tried drifting a car in a church parking lot a few months ago and ended up running into the building (it was a shining moment for the whole family).

Thankfully the damage was minimal (less than a thousand dollars) but both families got to split the cost of the repair.  The bill came to us through the church's attorney (not Mcconkie, a different firm) and we were instructed to make the check out to the corporation of the presiding bishop. 

So, at least in April, that corporation still existed.

[JustAnAustralian]

53 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

By the way—did anyone catch the answer’s statement that the corporation sole formerly known as the Corporation of the President of the CoJCoLDS is now known simply as “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”, a corporation sole which conducts the affairs of a religious organization of the same name?  What does this mean for the structure of the Church’s financial affairs?  If the Corporation of the President is now defunct, does the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop still exist?  What kind of corporate consolidation/restructuring has been happening lately?

They merged in 2019 according to a footnote in this article https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3835265 not sure when the rename happened though.

Edited May 6, 2021 by JustAnAustralian

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

So, my teenage son and his friend, in a stupid teenage move, tried drifting a car in a church parking lot a few months ago and ended up running into the building (it was a shining moment for the whole family).

Thankfully the damage was minimal (less than a thousand dollars) but both families got to split the cost of the repair.  The bill came to us through the church's attorney (not Mcconkie, a different firm) and we were instructed to make the check out to the corporation of the presiding bishop. 

So, at least in April, that corporation still existed.

But, the real question (at least mine, anyway) is whether he succeeded in getting a good drift out of the car?  Also, what kind of car?  I have issues.

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, ttribe said:

But, the real question (at least mine, anyway) is whether he succeeded in getting a good drift out of the car?  Also, what kind of car?  I have issues.

It was 97 ford Taurus.  🤦‍♀️

Pretty sure the drift was nominal, and the car did not survive the attempt.

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It was 97 ford Taurus.  🤦‍♀️

Pretty sure the drift was nominal, and the car did not survive the attempt.

First rule of drifting: you need a rear-wheel drive car, which a Taurus is not (or in this case, was not). 

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

It was 97 ford Taurus.  🤦‍♀️

Pretty sure the drift was nominal, and the car did not survive the attempt.

I've never heard of that expression before... drifting...hmm. When I worked at a golf course before I got my driver's license, my mom took me to work. We had a really old truck and the brakes were not the best and when she pulled up to the club house the brakes barely worked and we ran into the building but luckily it didn't go all the way through but took out some brick, my boss was not happy. 

The most damage my son did, right after he got off his mission, was when hitting a golf ball he hit it through the nursery room window, while practicing his golf swing in our back yard that backed up to the church. I was a little embarrassed when we called the building supervisor forgot the name of the position. But we did clean it up so the glass wouldn't harm any kids. 

[PacMan]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

But if the Church "wants to get it over with," why file an Answer rather than a Motion to Dismiss?  It is true that the judge might grant the motion to dismiss but allow leave to amend to fix any defects int he pleading (as we saw in the Gaddy lawsuit).  However, filing an amended pleading usually has a ticking clock, 45 days or so, after which leave to amend expires and, presumably, res judicata would attach.  Am I correct on this?

In contrast, filing an Answer opens the Church to Huntsman's discovery efforts.  Mr. Huntsman's attorneys will likely propound some far-reaching discovery requests, which the Church may well oppose, thus resulting in a legal argument that Huntsman's attorneys will use to generate more publicity ("What are they hiding?"-style stuff).  

The Church's attorneys could "get it over with" by filing a Motion for Summary Judgment, but that would be predicated on there being no dispute of material facts.  And Huntsman's attorneys could theoretically dely consideration of such a motion by seeking a continuance under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f).  And even if the Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, Huntsman's attorneys could seek leave to amend, which could just re-start things.

I've had very little experience with Rule 12(c) motions for "judgment on the pleadings," but I suppose that could be an alternative to a Motion for Summary Judgment.  And wouldn't such a motion avoid the Rule 56(f) continuance problem?

It has been some years since I litigated these procedural complexities in federal court.  And I did so in Utah, not California, so local rules may come into play.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think it's pretty obvious what the Church is doing.  The Church is calling out James Huntsman and exposing him--not only as being petulant but also, dishonest.  This isn't a door the Church would open, but it's very clear they are doubling down on their version of the facts.  They're about to slam the door in Huntsman's face.  This could go very badly for both Huntsman and his attorneys.

[AtlanticMike]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It was 97 ford Taurus

Can you do me a favor please? Tell your son if he's going to attempt drifting his Ford Taurus, he needs to do it in reverse so the power is in the trailing wheels😁. Also, if he only caused $1000 in damages, that means he wasn't committed to the turn. Tell him next time to try to make it past the class room and all the way to the hallway of the church, that should do the trick. If the bill comes back in the $40,000 range atleast you'll know he was trying his best! 

  Just kidding, that's a great story about your son, you'll be joking on him about hitting the church forever.

Edited May 7, 2021 by AtlanticMike

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Can you do me a favor please? Tell your son if he's going to attempt drifting his Ford Taurus, he needs to do it in reverse so the power is in the trailing wheels😁. Also, if he only caused $1000 in damages, that means he wasn't committed to the turn. Tell him next time to try to make it past the class room and all the way to the hallway of the church, that should do the trick. If the bill comes back in the $40,000 range atleast you'll know he was trying his best! 

  Just kidding, that's a great story about your son, you'll be joking on him about hitting the church forever.

The cops were laughing about them trying to drift a front wheel drive. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

First rule of drifting: you need a rear-wheel drive car, which a Taurus is not (or in this case, was not). 

Yes, he was quite the joke with the cops at the scene. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I've never heard of that expression before... drifting...hmm. When I worked at a golf course before I got my driver's license, my mom took me to work. We had a really old truck and the brakes were not the best and when she pulled up to the club house the brakes barely worked and we ran into the building but luckily it didn't go all the way through but took out some brick, my boss was not happy. 

The most damage my son did, right after he got off his mission, was when hitting a golf ball he hit it through the nursery room window, while practicing his golf swing in our back yard that backed up to the church. I was a little embarrassed when we called the building supervisor forgot the name of the position. But we did clean it up so the glass wouldn't harm any kids. 

😂

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, PacMan said:

This could go very badly for both Huntsman and his attorneys.

Would his attorneys be liable for any costs the Court requires from the defendant or are they only risking their reputation?

[PacMan]

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

Would his attorneys be liable for any costs the Court requires from the defendant or are they only risking their reputation?

If the attorneys did not undertake a reasonable inquiry of the facts asserted, then the Court could sanction both Huntsman and their attorneys for fees and costs.  If the Church's denials are true (e.g. regarding the frequency and amount of Huntsman's tithing, as well as the use of funds for the mall, etc.), then that means Huntsman flat lied.  The Court should absolutely sanction Huntsman.

[ttribe]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

It was 97 ford Taurus.  🤦‍♀️

Pretty sure the drift was nominal, and the car did not survive the attempt.

Yeah...97 Taurus...that was no drift...that was an uncontrolled skid, probably in the form of understeer.  Now, if he really wants to see what a drift is, I have a 600hp car that he ride along in...not drive, definitely not drive.

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, ttribe said:

 Now, if he really wants to see what a drift is, I have a 600hp car that he ride along in...not drive, definitely not drive.

That's a good call on the bolded part.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

First rule of drifting: you need a rear-wheel drive car, which a Taurus is not (or in this case, was not). 

 

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yes, he was quite the joke with the cops at the scene. 

I had never heard of the term “drift” in this context. However, when I Googled it, I understood immediately what is meant by it. I used to pretend to do it with my Matchbox and Hot Wheels cars when I was a boy. And most anyone who has seen a car chase scene in the movies or on TV gets it. 
 

I did, however, learn in the process of looking it up that the cops at the scene and jkwilliams are wrong. It is quite possible to drift a front-wheel-drive car, though it’s rather more difficult. 

[smac97]

16 hours ago, mgy401 said:

Given that even the SL Trib acknowledges the suit has more PR value than legal merit, the Church may have decided it wanted to avoid the optics of a 12(b)(6) argument that would have basically said “look, even if we are a false religion, and even if we lied to you about where your donation went, and even if City Creek *was* funded by tithes—we have a right to do that, so, nanny nanny boo boo”.

It is sort of frustrating that a 12(b)(6) motion can carry that connotation for people not familiar with how the procedural law works.

16 hours ago, mgy401 said:

This way the Church gets to avoid being stuck making that argument, gets to see Huntsman publicly embarrassed when his claims turn out to be false, gets to put him and his attorneys (who as you hint, seem out of their depth) through the ordeal of discovery, and—because of Huntsman’s profession and financial status—has an excellent chance of getting a collectible judgment for attorney’s fees when it’s all over.  

The "ordeal of discovery" can create some real headaches for the Church as well.  I'm reminded of the 2001 Oregon case that the Church settled, but that one seemed to involve an intractable judge that made a series of adverse rulings against the Church (including one that "the plaintiff could argue that the abuser was a clergyman because he held the title of high priest").  Oi.  

Also, how do you think the Church would be able to recoup its fees in a tort case?  The "American Rule" and all that?

16 hours ago, mgy401 said:

The only drawback is that through the discovery process, additional detail about the Church’s own finances may become public; and if the Church’s books are in order, it may well conclude that the general nature of the Church’s holdings are already known and that the release of additional detail at this point is an acceptable price to pay.

Yeah, I think we may see similar efforts in this suit.  But then, maybe not.  I wonder how adept a couple of (relatively) young attorneys working at an "Entertainment Law" firm will be at these sorts of things.

16 hours ago, mgy401 said:

By the way—did anyone catch the answer’s statement that the corporation sole formerly known as the Corporation of the President of the CoJCoLDS is now known simply as “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”, a corporation sole which conducts the affairs of a religious organization of the same name?  

No, I missed that.  Good catch.

16 hours ago, mgy401 said:

What does this mean for the structure of the Church’s financial affairs?  If the Corporation of the President is now defunct, does the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop still exist?  What kind of corporate consolidation/restructuring has been happening lately?

I just found this using the "Business Entity Search" feature of the website of the Utah Division of Corporations and Commercial Code:

Quote

CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

Update this Business

Entity Number: 12101032-0151
Company Type: DBA
Address: 50 E NORTH TEMPLE, 2WW Salt Lake City, UT 84150
State of Origin:
Registered Agent: CORPORATE AGENT SERVICES, LLC
Registered Agent Address:
36 S STATE ST STE 1900
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
View Management Team

Status: Active

Purchase Certificate of Existence

Status: Active  as of 01/05/2021
Renew By: 01/31/2024
Status Description: Current
The "Current" status represents that a renewal has been filed, within the most recent renewal period, with the Division of Corporations and Commercial Code.
Employment Verification: Not Registered with Verify Utah

History

View Filed Documents

Registration Date: 01/05/2021
Last Renewed: N/A

Additional Information

NAICS Code: 8131 NAICS Title: 8131-Religious Organizations

Note that the "Registration Date" for this corporation was January 5, 2021.  So this is a pretty recent change.

And note that the "NAICS" ("North American Industry Classification System") code for it is "8131," which is for religious organizations (see also here).

And this one:

Quote

CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

Update this Business

Entity Number: 11371958-0151
Company Type: DBA
Address: 50 E NORTH TEMPLE 2WW Salt Lake City, UT 84150
State of Origin:
Registered Agent: CORPORATE AGENT SERVICES, LLC
Registered Agent Address:
36 S STATE ST STE 1900
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
View Management Team

Status: Active

Purchase Certificate of Existence

Status: Active  as of 07/08/2019
Renew By: 07/31/2022
Status Description: Current
The "Current" status represents that a renewal has been filed, within the most recent renewal period, with the Division of Corporations and Commercial Code.
Employment Verification: Not Registered with Verify Utah

History

View Filed Documents

Registration Date: 07/08/2019
Last Renewed: N/A

Additional Information

NAICS Code: 8131 NAICS Title: 8131-Religious Organizations

This is a DBA, and was registered on July 8, 2019.

And this one:

Quote

CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

Entity Number: 555534-0145
Company Type: Corporation - Sole
Address: 50 EAST NORTH TEMPLE Salt Lake City, UT 84150
State of Origin: UT
Registered Agent: CORPORATE AGENT SERVICES, LLC
Registered Agent Address:
36 S STATE ST STE 1900
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
View Management Team

Status: Expired

Status: Expired  as of 12/31/2020
Status Description: Merged
Employment Verification: Not Registered with Verify Utah

History

View Filed Documents

Registration Date: 11/26/1923
Last Renewed: N/A

Additional Information

NAICS Code: 9999 NAICS Title: 9999-Nonclassifiable Establishment

This is the corporate form that was registered way back in 1923, and which expired on December 31, 2020, apparently replaced by the above corporation (Entity No. 12101032-0151).

Note that the "NAICS" code is "9999," probably meaning that it existed prior to the NAICS classification system coming online (or else that the Church was, perhaps until December 31, 2020, "an unincorporated religious association" (see the OP for more info).

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

So, my teenage son and his friend, in a stupid teenage move, tried drifting a car in a church parking lot a few months ago and ended up running into the building (it was a shining moment for the whole family).

Thankfully the damage was minimal (less than a thousand dollars) but both families got to split the cost of the repair.  The bill came to us through the church's attorney (not Mcconkie, a different firm) and we were instructed to make the check out to the corporation of the presiding bishop. 

So, at least in April, that corporation still existed.

There have been three tax-exempt corporations:

• 1) "The Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (the "COP").  Per Wikipedia, the COP was created in 1923 and "manage{s} money and church donations" for the Church.
• 2) "The Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (the "CBP").  Per Wikipedia, the CBP was created in 1916 and its function is to "acquire, hold, and dispose of real property."
• 3) "Intellectual Reserve, Inc." was, per Wikipedia, "incorporated in 1997 to hold the church's copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual property."

Meanwhile, the Church itself is (or, until very recently, was) an "an unincorporated religious association."

The damage was done to a building, which is considered real property, which is apparently owned by the CBP.

Here is the corporate entry for the CBP per Utah state records:

Quote

CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

Update this Business

Entity Number: 11371958-0151
Company Type: DBA
Address: 50 E NORTH TEMPLE 2WW Salt Lake City, UT 84150
State of Origin:
Registered Agent: CORPORATE AGENT SERVICES, LLC
Registered Agent Address:
36 S STATE ST STE 1900
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
View Management Team

Status: Active

Purchase Certificate of Existence

Status: Active  as of 07/08/2019
Renew By: 07/31/2022
Status Description: Current
The "Current" status represents that a renewal has been filed, within the most recent renewal period, with the Division of Corporations and Commercial Code.
Employment Verification: Not Registered with Verify Utah

History

View Filed Documents

Registration Date: 07/08/2019
Last Renewed: N/A

Additional Information

NAICS Code: 8131 NAICS Title: 8131-Religious Organizations

It looks like this was registered in 2019, whereas the article in Wikipedia says it was incorporated in 1916.  I can't find any such Utah corporation, but I did find this information:

Quote

ENTITY

Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

• Connected to 2 addresses
•  Incorporated: 11-JUL-1916 
•  Registered in: Cayman Islands
•  Linked countries: Cayman Islands, Dominican Republic

•  Data from: Paradise Papers - Appleby
•  Agent: Appleby
•  Appleby data is current through 2014
•  Search in 
•  Got a tip? Help ICIJ investigate: contact us or leak to us securely

The CPB was incorporated in 1916 in the Cayman Islands?  That would be pretty interesting if true.

I wonder if the CPB previously existed from 1916 to 2019 as a corporation formed in the Caymans, and thereafter was re-formed in 2019 as a Utah tax-exempt "8131" corporation.

Thanks,

-Smac