Man sues church because he wants donation back

[imfree]

An interesting story I found this morning.
Personally, I think this man is in the wrong.

http://www.kare11.com/news/news-article.asp?NEWS_ID=58070

Cloquet Man Wants $126,000 Church Donation Back, Church Says No

A 55-year-old man is suing a Cloquet, Minnesota church because it won't give back a $126,000 donation he gave during a deep depression five years ago.

Marcel Mager of Cloquet says he made the anonymous donation during a time of emotional distress and thought giving the church money would ease his pain. His wife had left him two weeks prior to the January 1999 donation. It was nearly their entire life savings.

Five months later, Mager asked for the money back, but leaders at the Cloquet Gospel Tabernacle church said no. They had already used the money for new family ministry space.

After spending years trying to resolve the situation quietly, Mager sued the church in 2002 and it has yet to be resolved.

Mager says he's coming forward in thehopes the church will return his money.

The church pastor, the Reverend Richard Doebler, says church leaders feel bad about the situation but don't plan on giving back the donation.

(Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

[A.Rachel]

What is the church supposed to do? They had already spent the money by the time he asked for it back (which was 5 MONTHS later!).


This is just another case of someone taking no personal responsibility for his own actions.


His action of voluntarily giving his money away has the natural consequence of leaving him without the money. duh. :doh


It was HIS decision.

It was HIS action.

Now, it is HIS consequence.



That's life.


It is not right for him to try to make the church accept the consequences of his behavior. The church had already spent the money on it's ministry. Where is this church supposed to come up with $126,000 to give to this man?



Next time, that man should think long and hard before he makes a big decision like that, knowing that his actions and decisions have natural consequences.




:sigh

[blitzkreig]

Originally posted by A.Rachel
Next time, that man should think long and hard before he makes a big decision like that, knowing that his actions and decisions have natural consequences. While ordinarily I would agree... the man has a point ... "duress". It will be interesting to see the arguments and outcome of the trial.

[Rom831]

He'll loose. If he doesn't, go to your local casino, gamble everything you have. If you loose, claim you were depressed and want it all back. Bzzzzz... wrong answer. I have a few creditors I'd sure like to use this with!!!

Bless...ArtS

[blitzkreig]

Originally posted by Rom831
He'll loose. If he doesn't, go to your local casino, gamble everything you have. If you loose, claim you were depressed and want it all back. Bzzzzz... wrong answer. I have a few creditors I'd sure like to use this with!!! Very interesting comparison... although I doubt it has legs.

There are precedence a plenty for financial relationships which are later over turned, due to the principle at law of "duress". I guess we will have to see...

[antsinmypants]

strange.... :freaked

[savedandhappy1]

Marcel Mager of Cloquet says he made the anonymous donation during a time of emotional distress and thought giving the church money would ease his pain. His wife had left him two weeks prior to the January 1999 donation. It was nearly their entire life savings.

------------------------------------------------

At the time is was an anonymous donation. There is no way the church could have investagated or known the circumstances of the donation. They accepted it in faith, and should not be punished now for that.


Love in Christ,
Kathy

[KrispyKritter]

Nope... sorry, if the church did nothing to coerce the money from the guy in an illegal way... and the guy simply made a decision to give it, no matter his motivation in doing so... he is S.O.L.

And it seems from the article that the decision was solely his.

Too bad buddy...

Problem is, if the courts rule in favor of him, it will open up the door for people to get their money back from not only churches, but also every other charitable organization.

Before long, someone will sue to get their blood back from the Red Cross.

[scottruff]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter
Nope... sorry, if the church did nothing to coerce the money from the guy in an illegal way... and the guy simply made a decision to give it, no matter his motivation in doing so... he is S.O.L.


That's the key. He was not coerced. The was a case in Massachusetts, a good number of years ago, where a woman sued a ministry claiming her very large donations were coerced. She prevailed in court.

edit to add:

http://www.watchman.org/cults/stevens.htm

Excerpt:

On the cover of New England Magazine (November l987) is the small title: "$6,00,000 for God: The Bilking of a Gullible Heiress."

The article inside, by Bob Trebilcock, begins by stating:

"Blind Faith -The full, frightening story of Pastor Carl Stevens and heiress Betsy Dovydenas¾and how, in the name of God, he bilked her for more than six million dollars." (Ibid. p. 49)

In l987 Carl Stevens was guiding The Bible Speaks church in Lennox, Massachusetts when Mrs. Dovydenas sued for the return of her massive donations. Her family had previously spent $50,000 in a successful effort to have "Betsy" deprogrammed and thus removed from Stevens' influence. (Ibid. p. 116)

"Betsy" won the law suit and was eventually awarded the return of most of the $6 million which she had "donated" to Pastor Stevens' ministry.

During this legal battle, the court stated: "The Church [Bible Speaks] exercised undue influence upon the Claimant [Betsy], not only because of the extent of Stevens' dominion over the Claimant, but only because of the various unfair and improper mean which he used in gaining ascendency over her" (pp. 39-40, transcript of United States Bankruptcy Court District of Massachusetts. Signed by James Queenan, Jr. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge - May l9, l987).

[Whosoever]

Originally posted by blitzkreig
There are precedence a plenty for financial relationships which are later over turned, due to the principle at law of "duress". Perhaps, but the church did not put him in duress when he made the contribution. He gave of his own free will.

I find it fascinating how many people tend to treat giving money to the church like a joke, like it's a whim. They wouldn't donate a hundred grand to a business when they're in distress with the expectation to get that money back at a later time. And yet, a church is, in many ways, a business. They have needs, and donations help to cover those needs. If he really wants the money back, the church could always put a little plaque with his name in a corner of the room they built with the money. ;):

[KrispyKritter]

Originally posted by scottruff
That's the key. He was not coerced. The was a case in Massachusetts, a good number of years ago, where a woman sued a ministry claiming her very large donations were coerced. She prevailed in court.

edit to add:

http://www.watchman.org/cults/stevens.htm

Excerpt:

On the cover of New England Magazine (November l987) is the small title: "$6,00,000 for God: The Bilking of a Gullible Heiress."

The article inside, by Bob Trebilcock, begins by stating:

"Blind Faith -The full, frightening story of Pastor Carl Stevens and heiress Betsy Dovydenas¾and how, in the name of God, he bilked her for more than six million dollars." (Ibid. p. 49)

In l987 Carl Stevens was guiding The Bible Speaks church in Lennox, Massachusetts when Mrs. Dovydenas sued for the return of her massive donations. Her family had previously spent $50,000 in a successful effort to have "Betsy" deprogrammed and thus removed from Stevens' influence. (Ibid. p. 116)

"Betsy" won the law suit and was eventually awarded the return of most of the $6 million which she had "donated" to Pastor Stevens' ministry.

During this legal battle, the court stated: "The Church [Bible Speaks] exercised undue influence upon the Claimant [Betsy], not only because of the extent of Stevens' dominion over the Claimant, but only because of the various unfair and improper mean which he used in gaining ascendency over her" (pp. 39-40, transcript of United States Bankruptcy Court District of Massachusetts. Signed by James Queenan, Jr. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge - May l9, l987).

This all may be true... but the fact remains... if your Patriots make it to the "big game", they will be badly embarrassed by the butt-kickin they will take by the CAROLINA PANTHERS!

[scottruff]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter
This all may be true... but the fact remains... if your Patriots make it to the "big game", they will be badly embarrassed by the butt-kickin they will take by the CAROLINA PANTHERS!

Them's fightin' words, bro.:pound

BTW, nice hijack!

[KrispyKritter]

Originally posted by scottruff
Them's fightin' words, bro.:pound

BTW, nice hijack!

Pretty smooth, dontcha think? That was called a "segway"!

[Whosoever]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter
Pretty smooth, dontcha think? That was called a "segway"! No, this is called a segway.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00007EPJ6.01.MZZZZZZZ.jpg

:D:

[blitzkreig]

Hey I saw a Segway downtown yesterday.... the guy on it was really going fast!!!

Back on topic... Let's take a look at a hypothetical example.

If in a marriage, which is in distress, a husband was to take a huge amount of money (out of spite) from out of their joint bank account (which was the wife's inheritance from her mother and father) and donated it to the "endangered cockroach society fund" what would you say?

Would the wife have any claim on the money? By reason of a joint bank account he had power of attorney. Does the principle of "you gave it too bad" still apply?

[Whosoever]

Originally posted by blitzkreig
If in a marriage, which is in distress, a husband was to take a huge amount of money (out of spite) from out of their joint bank account (which was the wife's inheritance from her mother and father) and donated it to the "endangered cockroach society fund" what would you say?

Would the wife have any claim on the money? By reason of a joint bank account he had power of attorney. Does the principle of "you gave it too bad" still apply? No she wouldn't, and yes, the principle would still apply. The wife would have a good reason for smacking her husband upside the head, but legally the money would be gone. Unless, of course, the husband had a history of doing things like that; then she would have grounds to prove he did it out of spite and not kindness towards cockroaches. The man who donated a hundred thousand to this church didn't do it out of spite.

[Kung Pao Smurf]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter
Pretty smooth, dontcha think? That was called a "segway"!

Or maybe a 'segue.'

:heh

[A.Rachel]

It was an anonymous donation given by this man of his own free will.

It was NOT done under "duress".


There was NO duress or coercion involved AT ALL.


Just a man who changed his mind 5 months later, and who now expects the church to raise $126,000 to give back to him.



:sigh

[filosofer]

If it was anonymous, then can the church be sure that he was the one who gave the money?

[blitzkreig]

Originally posted by filosofer
If it was anonymous, then can the church be sure that he was the one who gave the money? When we are talking 126,000 there is no such thing as "anonymous".

How did he stick 126,000 dollars on the offering plate with no one noticing ... a stack of 10s and 20s would be a few feet tall.

How would a person convince a bank to give him 126,000 dollars cash? There must have been a few eyebrows raised. Large withdrawls and deposits of cash set up flags all over the place now-a-days... they always suspect drugs.

Come to think of it if the church made a deposit of 126,000 shortly after our confused donor had withdrawn 126,000 that would certainly be cause to link the two events.

Now let's talk about a money order or a bank draft...

I go back to there is no such thing as anonymous when you are talking 126,000 dollars...

[jegs2]

Originally posted by imfree
[b]Five months later, Mager asked for the money back, but leaders at the Cloquet Gospel Tabernacle church said no. They had already used the money for new family ministry space.

After spending years trying to resolve the situation quietly, Mager sued the church in 2002 and it has yet to be resolved.

The rub is the five-month wait. The church had already spent the money, thus it no longer was available for refund to he who gave it.

[Masterfulks]

I have heard in my accounting classes that a long time ago there was some law written that you could not give a large sum to a church within so long of your death....Apparently there was a problem with Priests going to people about to die and talking them out of large amounts of money. So something was passed years ago to keep familys from losing their wealth. I wish I knew where to look it up or if a teacher was just messing with us........


This guy shouldnt get his money back. At least not what the church doesnt want to give back. I'd say shame on the church for blowing 126k so fast. I would also hope that this guy has some proof that he actually gave the money. If it was an annon gift then how do they know? I would guess theres a check or bank statement lying around somewhere.

If he wasnt tricked or forced into giving the money, then he gave freely. Heck he wanted out of the depression and it sounds like it worked!

[R1200C]

A $126,000 sounds like a lot of money but that is about the normal budget for 5 months for my church. Also, how many churchs are always in the process of trying to pay off the last building project. If we got that kind of money, it would go into reducing our latest building fund debt in a heartbeat.
I also don't understand how this sum could be done without knowledge of the giver but stranger things have happened.
With our court system, anything is a tossup these days so it will be interesting to see how this comes out.

[Lilmomma]

HMMM he was depressed so he donated allhis money....looks like hes not depressed anymore...just greedy. God took care of him and help him through his depression and now hes being greedy and ungrateful! :mad

[quiet_reverie]

I'm not going to say much but as someone who has suffered from severe depression since the age of 12 I must say that such depression and stress can drive a person to do something they would not normally do....try not to judge this man so harshly and unfairly unless you know all the details...

Have compassion. Depression is life crushing.

[Lilmomma]

I understand depression but the church should nto suffer