Man sues church to get donation back

ixnay · January 13, 2004, 14:48

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/sto...MPLATE=DEFAULT

Quote:

Minn. Man Wants Church Donation Back

CLOQUET, Minn. (AP) -- A 55-year-old man is suing a local church because it won't give back a $126,000 donation he gave during a deep depression five years ago.

Marcel Mager, of Cloquet, said 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.

After five months of antidepressants and counseling, Mager said he 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.

Mager told the head pastor, the Rev. Richard Doebler, he was not of sound mind when he made the donation.

"I was really confused at the time, really depressed," said Mager, an unemployed optometrist. "I didn't even confide in my wife that I had done it."

The church board held the line: Mager gave them the money, and churches nationwide have historically not given donations back - no matter the circumstances.

Mager quietly lobbied the church board and Doebler for the money to be returned. Years passed, and Mager lost hope for a quiet resolution.

He filed a lawsuit against the church in 2002. The two sides have been exchanging paperwork ever since, with no immediate legal end in sight.

"It's clear they aren't concerned about me, they only want my money," Mager said last week. He decided to go public in the hopes that the church will give back the money.

Mager might have a difficult time getting his money back in court, said Richard Hammar, an expert in church law and tax code in Springfield, Mo. Hammar publishes a nationwide newsletter on church finances, Church Law & Tax Report.

Mager's only hope is to prove he was not of sound mind when he made the donation, Hammar said.

But that can be extremely difficult because families of people with more permanent mental ailments - such as Alzheimer's disease - have failed to get large donations overturned, Hammar said. "He really has an uphill battle."

Even more rare is for a church to willingly give back a donation, Hammar said. "I tell people that if they do that, they better open up an office for everybody to come make their case," he said.

Mager's change of heart is confounding to church leaders because the letter he sent with the cashier's check seemed so genuine, Doebler said.

"He felt some remorse for some past actions and he wanted to make it right with God," Doebler said, recounting the letter. "At the time, we were taking it on good faith that this is what he wanted. It was hard to know what we were dealing with since it was anonymous."

Church leaders feel really bad about the situation, Doebler said. "We'd have preferred to work it out amiably."

Mager insists he didn't donate the money to spite his wife, but merely hoped it would lead to some spiritual relief. In fact, his now ex-wife told the church to keep the money.

What an idiot. "Well, money didn't buy me happiness so I want it back. Let me try this again"

Boris Godunov · January 13, 2004, 14:56

If he can show that at the time his mental state made him incapable of rendering a competent decision, then he should get the money back, of course.

But I doubt that will be provable--indeed, depression isn't normally considered grounds for mental incompetency. So legally I'd say he's screwed.

However, I'd think the "Christian" thing to do for the church would be to return the money regardless.

OzzyKP · January 13, 2004, 14:59

Tomorrow's sermon: Indian givers go to hell.

Gatekeeper · January 13, 2004, 15:01

If this guy gets his money back, next thing you know, charitable organizations other than churches will have to give back donations years after getting them 'cause somebody had a change of heart. Maybe a liberal becomes a conservative and demands his/her money back from a liberal cause ... or vice-versa.

My point? 'Tis a big can of worms that could be opened up here.

Gatekeeper

Stuie · January 13, 2004, 15:03

Damn. I'm going to open a church.

Gatekeeper · January 13, 2004, 15:04

Or, how would you like it if somebody gave you a $5,000 gift/grant/charity donation in 2003, you spent it, and they come back at you in 2005 wanting their money back 'cause they were allegedly not competent at the time of they gave you the money? That's unfair ...

Gatekeeper

chequita guevara · January 13, 2004, 15:04

The point being he wasn't of sound mind when he made his donation. Legally he shouldn't be held responsible if that is, in fact, the case.

Arrian · January 13, 2004, 15:07

Of for ****'s sake! The guy did something very stupid when he wasn't thinking clearly... this happens all the time. The difference here is in scale - $126,000 is a lot of money. However, THIS IS WHY YOU DON'T MAKE CRUCIAL DECISIONS WHEN YOU'RE UPSET.

I don't see why the Church should have to give his money back.

-Arrian

MichaeltheGreat · January 13, 2004, 15:22

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The point being he wasn't of sound mind when he made his donation. Legally he shouldn't be held responsible if that is, in fact, the case.

He also made the donation anonymously. He's responsible unless the other party knew or should have known that he was incompetent - a standard the church could not meet with an anonymous donation.

orange · January 13, 2004, 16:06

There is absolutely NO reason he should get the money back. If the church receives a donation and puts it to use (whatever that use is doesn't matter) they should not be responsible for paying it back when someone goes back on it. Sound mind or not...

Patroklos · January 13, 2004, 16:17

Maybe if a few days went by and they still had the money in cash. Now they have spent it on the family center, something they probobly couldn't have afforded otherwise, and they don't have the option of returning it whether they want to or not. Does he want them to raise 126,000 more in quarters and ones so they can give it back? Sell half the church back or just give it to him?

It just isn't reasonable.

The Emperor Fabulous · January 13, 2004, 16:21

I doubt that the church even HAS
$126,000 available to give.

Ben Kenobi · January 13, 2004, 16:43

Quote:

If he can show that at the time his mental state made him incapable of rendering a competent decision, then he should get the money back, of course.

He donated anonymously, so how could the church know? Most chuches would rather know who their donors are, so they can give them tax credits, but they also respect those who give anonymously in not wanting to recieve earthly praise for their giving. Short of asking every member of the congregation if they donated this large check, and with no guarantee that the person who did would step forward, I think the church had no option but to accept the money.

Secondly, Emperor Fabulous has a good point. That money has been used by the church for good works. They should show the man what has been done with his money, and later ask if he would want all this to be torn down. It's not reasonable to expect the church to repay the man, since the church is not a bank with lots of cash on hand.

Boris Godunov · January 13, 2004, 16:53

Ben, the understanding with him proving mental competency for legal purposes is that the Church would have had been reasonably able to discern such a thing, absolutely--thought that was a given.

But let's say he hadn't given it anonymously. What if he had given them the money, and he showed obvious signs of not being in his right mind, signs obvious enough that the church couldn't reasonably have not known he was mentally deranged. Were that the case, I'd say they were wrong to take his money and should have to pay it back, no matter what they've done with it or if they can afford to return it.

On a side note, I wish more people were suing unscrupulous televangelists who broadcast baldface lies on their programs to solicit donations. They should be charged with theft.

Ben Kenobi · January 13, 2004, 17:04

Boris

I would expect that to be the case, that the church would give his money back. They would prefer a giver to give freely, and not under compulsion. That's why the second half of his statement seems so puzzling, that all the church wants is the man's money. They can't help him unless he asks for their help in counselling. When I first started going to church I was depressed, but I asked for help from the church, and they did a good job with me. I never needed to go on meds.

Winston · January 13, 2004, 17:25

People, people. This is a CHURCH! Surely they must be doing something wrong.

Arrian · January 13, 2004, 17:26

Probably. But the guy's still an idjit and not entitled to get the money back.

-Arrian

Winston · January 13, 2004, 17:34

I agree, I am just very disappointed that nobody seems to be able to point a finger at the church. That is usually no problem here at Poly.

GePap · January 13, 2004, 17:36

Yeah Winston: we haven't met our church burning quota for the month. maybe we should torch yours?

As for the guy...well, his mistake. He should realize he did so much good with that money, probalby more than he would have done with it.

Winston · January 13, 2004, 17:38

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

He should realize he did so much good with that money, probalby more than he would have done with it.

But he did.

The Templar · January 13, 2004, 17:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
Probably. But the guy's still an idjit and not entitled to get the money back.

-Arrian

With an argument like that, I hope I litigate a contract dispute against you some day (your not a landlord in NYC are you? ).

MtG has it right. If the church could be construed to know that the donor was impaired at the time, then the money would have to be returned. In this case, they could not have known.

Of course, that someone is giving money to a church might in itself demonstrate mental incapacity.

Shi Huangdi · January 13, 2004, 17:46

The Church may have already spent the money though and so it might not be able to repay it. Churches aren't required to keep money on hand to repay donors- once you give the money as a donation it is theirs.

Moreover, it hardly seems like he was of unsound mind. It just seems like he was depressed and thought giving money would help.

chequita guevara · January 13, 2004, 17:49

Quote:

After five months of antidepressants and counseling, Mager said he 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.

Dude had to be medicated. That's not of sound mind.

GePap · January 13, 2004, 17:53

Quote:

Originally posted by The Templar

With an argument like that, I hope I litigate a contract dispute against you some day (your not a landlord in NYC are you? ).

You litigate vs. NYC landlords? Do tell.

Arrian · January 13, 2004, 17:55

Quote:

Originally posted by The Templar

With an argument like that, I hope I litigate a contract dispute against you some day (your not a landlord in NYC are you? ).

MtG has it right. If the church could be construed to know that the donor was impaired at the time, then the money would have to be returned. In this case, they could not have known.

Of course, that someone is giving money to a church might in itself demonstrate mental incapacity.

I was responding to Winston's troll attempt, smart guy.

-Arrian

GePap · January 13, 2004, 17:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian

I was responding to Winston's troll attempt, smart guy.

-Arrian

Sorry, but you connecticutt types just don;t have the flare...(except if you are the gov, and then you ask people to fogive you on Tv for corruption)

Boris Godunov · January 13, 2004, 18:00

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Quote:

After five months of antidepressants and counseling, Mager said he 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.

Dude had to be medicated. That's not of sound mind.

Which the Church had no means of knowing, since he gave anonymously, so they're not responsible.

The Templar · January 13, 2004, 18:02

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

You litigate vs. NYC landlords? Do tell.

No, I am but a humble law student - but I had an internship at the Legal Aid Society housing division in the Bronx (and try to help out with their research load when I have the time). I would like to get a permanent position there after graduation, though.

The Templar · January 13, 2004, 18:03

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

Sorry, but you connecticutt types just don;t have the flare...(except if you are the gov, and then you ask people to fogive you on Tv for corruption)

GePap · January 13, 2004, 18:07

Quote:

Originally posted by The Templar

No, I am but a humble law student - but I had an internship at the Legal Aid Society housing division in the Bronx (and try to help out with their research load when I have the time). I would like to get a permanent position there after graduation, though.

Well, my dealings with legal aide are mixed. you guys are utterly swamped and that does affect performance.