Kinney v. Catholic Diocese of Biloxi, Inc., 142 So. 3d 407

St. Paul Catholic Church in Pass Christian was damaged by Hurricane Katrina; Bishop Rodi issued decrees merging St. Paul into Holy Family Parish and later closing St. Paul, prompting fundraising and donor communications about rebuilding.
154 former parishioners (Plaintiffs) sued the Diocese, Bishop Rodi, and Father Carver claiming (a) diversion of donations designated for rebuilding St. Paul and (b) intentional misrepresentation by Father Carver in soliciting donations.
In Schmidt I, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over diversion-of-designated-funds and intentional-misrepresentation claims (but not over property-trust claims or church-management decisions) and discussed, favorably, the four Barker elements for diversion claims.
On remand the chancery court limited discovery to named plaintiffs and treated the diversion claim under the Barker framework (pledge, abandonment/diversion, demand for return, church refusal), granting summary judgment for defendants after finding most plaintiffs either did not donate, received refunds, or never demanded refunds.
The Supreme Court (Waller, C.J.) affirmed: only donors have a legally enforceable interest in reclaiming designated donations; plaintiffs lacked standing to assert claims on behalf of non-plaintiff donors; and no plaintiff proved the elements for diversion or the clear-and-convincing injury required for intentional misrepresentation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs may maintain a diversion-of-designated-funds claim on behalf of non-donors or non-plaintiff donors	Plaintiffs: fundraising created a charitable trust benefitting the parish class, so named plaintiffs may enforce rights for all donors	Defendants: only individual donors have enforceable rights; no class action procedure exists in Mississippi chancery practice	Held: No. Only actual donors (named plaintiffs who donated and demanded refunds and were refused) have standing; plaintiffs cannot sue for donations they did not make or on behalf of absent donors
Whether plaintiffs can maintain an intentional-misrepresentation claim against Father Carver	Plaintiffs: misrepresentations induced donations and caused harms beyond monetary loss (loss of community services/legacy), and discovery of Carver’s deposition needed	Defendants: most plaintiffs did not donate; donors were offered refunds and many received them; absent proof of reliance and injury, claim fails	Held: No. Plaintiffs failed to prove the nine elements by clear and convincing evidence (particularly reliance/injury); summary judgment affirmed

Schmidt v. Catholic Diocese of Biloxi, 18 So.3d 814 (Miss. 2009) (held courts may hear diversion-of-designated-funds and intentional-misrepresentation claims but not disputes over internal church property/administration)
Barker v. The Wardens & Vestrymen of St. Barnabas Church, 126 N.W.2d 170 (Neb. 1964) (articulated four-element test for reclaiming diverted church fundraising contributions)
Roman Catholic Diocese of Jackson v. Morrison, 905 So.2d 1213 (Miss. 2005) (discusses limits on civil-court review of hierarchical church administrative decisions)
Columbus Cmty. Hosp., Inc. v. Califano, 614 F.2d 181 (8th Cir. 1980) (applies general law of contributions: donors may reclaim contributions when a stated purpose is abandoned)
Koury v. Ready, 911 So.2d 441 (Miss. 2005) (no actionable fraud where alleged misrepresentation causes no compensable injury)