Matthews v. Adams

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Matthews v. Adams

520 So. 2d 334, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 580, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 736, 1988 WL 16015

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 3, 1988

DocketNo. 87-1217

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 520 So. 2d 334 (Matthews v. Adams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matthews v. Adams, 520 So. 2d 334, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 580, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 736, 1988 WL 16015 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment in a case involving an accounting. Some members of a nonprofit corporation sought an accounting of the funds they donated to the corporation and sought to require the holdover directors (trustees) of the corporation to cause the involuntary dissolution of the corporation to be corrected. The trial judge ordered an accounting and also ordered future audits yearly forever. Additionally the judge required the corporation to adopt bylaws and open a safe deposit box and “make the contents therein known to plaintiffs.”

Appellants appeal on the basis that the circuit court had no authority over them because they are a recognized religious organization, a church. On first reflection they appeared to be correct but upon a closer study of the complaint and the judgment we are of the opinion that this is not an improper interference by the government into a church, or ecclesiastical, matter. When the members of the church decided to incorporate their body under the laws of the state of Florida they submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the state courts in all matters of a corporate nature, such as accounting for funds.

We affirm the order of the trial court directing an accounting, opening of the safe deposit box and the curing of the involuntary dissolution. We cannot agree it is proper to order annual, ad infinitum, audits of the books so we reverse that portion of the judgment. Because the corporation has the right to pass or not pass bylaws, or even to voluntarily dissolve hereafter, we do not deem it warranted to require the enactment of bylaws, so we reverse that portion of the judgment also. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

W. SHARP, C.J., and DANIEL, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment in a case involving an accounting. Some members of a nonprofit corporation sought an accounting of the funds they donated to the corporation and sought to require the holdover directors (trustees) of the corporation to cause the involuntary dissolution of the corporation to be corrected. The trial judge ordered an accounting and also ordered future audits yearly forever. Additionally the judge required the corporation to adopt bylaws and open a safe deposit box and “make the contents therein known to plaintiffs.”

Appellants appeal on the basis that the circuit court had no authority over them because they are a recognized religious organization, a church. On first reflection they appeared to be correct but upon a closer study of the complaint and the judgment we are of the opinion that this is not an improper interference by the government into a church, or ecclesiastical, matter. When the members of the church decided to incorporate their body under the laws of the state of Florida they submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the state courts in all matters of a corporate nature, such as accounting for funds.

We affirm the order of the trial court directing an accounting, opening of the safe deposit box and the curing of the involuntary dissolution. We cannot agree it is proper to order annual, ad infinitum, audits of the books so we reverse that portion of the judgment. Because the corporation has the right to pass or not pass bylaws, or even to voluntarily dissolve hereafter, we do not deem it warranted to require the enactment of bylaws, so we reverse that portion of the judgment also. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

W. SHARP, C.J., and DANIEL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

520 So. 2d 334, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 580, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 736, 1988 WL 16015, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthews-v-adams-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack