Wipf v. Hutterville Hutterian Brethren, Inc.
808 N.W.2d 678
S.D.2012Background
- Dispute between Wipf/Hofers and Waldner faction over control of Hutterville Hutterian Brethren, Inc. (a South Dakota nonprofit religious corporation) and which Group to follow within Schmiedeleut; prior court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to entanglement in religious issues; second suit sought dissolution and appointment of a receiver due to deadlock and alleged misapplication of assets; court found directors deadlocked, oppression by Waldner faction, and that Hutterville wasn’t functioning as a communal corporation; court ordered dissolution and asset division among members age 8+ residing on property; issues of membership and leadership tied to religious doctrine were not fully resolved; appellees appeal the dissolution-related rulings on jurisdiction and membership; Supreme Court reverses for lack of jurisdiction and remands to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether civil court has jurisdiction to dissolve a religious corporation over church membership disputes | Wipf argues secular, non-religious issues govern corporate governance. | Waldner contends dissolution is permissible when directors are deadlocked and mismanagement occurs. | Jurisdiction lacking; church membership disputes pervade the dissolution. |
| Whether the circuit court could determine Hutterville's membership and leadership for dissolution | Members and directors can be identified for purposes of dissolution. | Determining true church membership/t leadership conflicts with First Amendment rights. | Court cannot determine church membership/directorship for dissolution. |
| Whether neutral principles of law can resolve church governance disputes | Neutral principles can be applied to secular documents if church doctrine does not pervade them. | Neutral principles cannot resolve disputes where church doctrine pervades governance documents. | Neutral principles do not apply when church doctrine pervades the governing documents. |
| Whether dissolution would comply with First Amendment protections and SDCL 47-26-22/30 | Dissolution follows statutory criteria and distribution rules. | Dissolution would entangle government with religious membership and leadership. | Dissolution improper; must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Whether the court erred in identifying assets/membership for distribution | Assets should be distributed per articles/bylaws to members in good standing. | Distribution would require judging religious eligibility. | Identity of members and leaders unresolved; distribution framework invalid. |
Key Cases Cited
- Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese for the U.S. and Can. v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696 (U.S. 1976) (no civil court may decide church doctrine; religious disputes reserved to ecclesiastical tribunals)
- Decker ex rel. Decker v. Tschetter Hutterian Brethren, Inc., 594 N.W.2d 357 (S.D. 1999) (neutral principles limited where church doctrine dominates)
- Hines v. Turley, 615 N.E.2d 1251 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993) (dissolution of religious corporation blocked to avoid entanglement in doctrine)
- Heitkamp v. Family Life Services, 616 N.W.2d 826 (N.D. 2000) (involuntary dissolution not allowed when it violates First Amendment; board reconstitution different context)
- Hutterville Hutterian Brethren, Inc. v. Waldner, 791 N.W.2d 169 (S.D. 2010) (religious disputes pervade corporate governance; jurisdictional limits to secular review)