In
Hutterville Hutterian Brethren v. Sveen, (D SD, Aug. 30, 2013), a South Dakota federal district court dismissed the latest in a long series of lawsuits and appeals surrounding a schism in the Hutterite colonies in the Dakotas and Minnesota. This suit for damages against the attorneys who represented the large majority of colonies that followed Rev. Joseph Wipf, as well as against the court-appointed receiver, alleged fraud, deceit, breach of fiduciary duty and RICO violations. It was filed by the small group of 5 colonies that remained loyal to Rev. Jacob Kleinsasser (who was accused of improper financial dealings). The court concluded:
... [A]s previous litigation has made clear, since voting memberships, directorships and officerships of Hutterville are inseparable from religious principles, these matters are shielded from judicial scrutiny under the First Amendment. ...[C]orporate governance cannot be decided without 'extensive inquiry into religious doctrine and beliefs' of the Hutterian faith."...
As individuals, the Waldner Plaintiffs as claimed members of Hutterville, the communal corporation, have no individual claims for money damages against the Wipf faction lawyers and court-appointed receiver. Having no individual claims is different from having no standing to bring separate claims for the same damages on behalf of Hutterville. The latter claims get dismissed for lack of standing. The former individual claims get dismissed for lack of any property right to make these types of property damages claims due to their individual renunciation of individual property.
(See
prior related posting.)
