A quick follow-up to one of my previous posts: a federal judge dismissed James Huntsman’s fraud lawsuit against the church on Friday.
This may not have been an absolutely forgone conclusion, but it comes pretty close to one. Remember, Huntsman was suing to get his tithing money back from the church. That’s a tough ask in the first place because, other than conditional gifts, US law treats charitable donations as belonging to the recipient. Just because you later regret having made the donation doesn’t mean you can rescind it.
So Huntsman alleged that the church had fraudulently induced him to pay tithing. He relied, he said, on several statements from the church that it did not using tithing money to build City Creek when, in fact, it did use tithing money to build City Creek.
The problem with this allegation, as courts often point out, is that fraud is easy to allege but difficult to prove. And the court held that this case didn’t need to go to trial because there was no dispute by the parties about any material fact and, based on the facts and allegations, no reasonable jury could find that the church misrepresent any facts.
Huntsman pointed to Hinckley’s assertion that no tithing funds would be used to build City Creek as a misrepresentation on which he relied. The court pointed out that Huntsman did “not properly consider the full statement made by Hinckley.” Yes, Hinckley said that tithing would not be used. But he also said that earnings on reserve tithings would, in fact, be used. And that was precisely what happened.
Huntsman also brought in a statement by David Neilson, the 2019 Ensign Partners whistleblower, saying that Ensign Partners referred to all of its funds under management as “tithing.” Neilson’s statement, he said, created an issue of material fact that should go to a jury.
The court again disagreed. First, it doesn’t matter how EPA internally referred to its assets under management. Hinckley expressly differentiated tithing from return on invested tithing in the statement that Huntsman claimed to have relied on, and a colloquial view by someone else didn’t affect that. Second, EPA allocated money to City Creek in 2004, 2007, and 2009. Neilson didn’t start working at EPA until 2010, so he didn’t have any firsthand knowledge.
Huntsman also challenged a $600 million allocation to Beneficial Life. But, the court pointed out, he acknowledged that he didn’t recall any specific statement by the church regarding Beneficial Life. And you can’t have fraud if there is no specific misstatement you point toward. In that case, you’re just objecting to the use of the money and, like I said above, the fact that you regret donating doesn’t let you get your money back.