New Hope Methodist Church v. Board of Trustees of the Louisiana Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, South Central Jurisdiction

NEW HOPE METHODIST CHURCH NO. 2024 CW 0637

VERSUS
PAGE 1 OF 2

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
LOUISIANA ANNUAL CONFERENCE
OF THE UNITED METHODIST
CHURCH, SOUTH CENTRAL
JURISDICTION

CONSOLIDATED WITH

CONCORD METHODIST CHURCH

VERSUS

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE SEPTEMBER 16, 2024
LOUISIANA ANNUAL CONFERENCE
OF THE UNITED METHODIST'
CHURCH, SOUTH CENTRAL
JURISDICTION

In Re: United Methodist Foundation of Lousiana, applying for
supervisory writs, 20th Judicial District Court,
Parish of West Feliciana, No. 24739 c/ w 24740.

BEFORE: McCLENDON, WELCH, CHUTZ, LANIER, AND STROMBERG, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED WITH ORDER. The portion of the trial court' s
June 18, 2024 judgment denying the declinatory exception of

improper venue filed by. United Methodist Foundation of Louisiana
hereinafter the " Foundation") is We
reversed. find that the
claims of plaintiffs, New Hope Methodist Church and Concord
Methodist Church, against the Foundation allege a breach of
investment management agreements between the plaintiffs and the
Foundation,
judicial
which contain a venue selection clause requiring any
dispute arising from the agreements to be brought in
East Baton Rouge Parish. Venue selection clauses, also referred
to as forum selection clauses, are prima facie valid, legal, and
binding in Louisiana, and a party seeking to set aside such a
provision bears a heavy burden of proof. Such a clause should
be enforced unless the resisting party clearly proves that
enforcement of the forum -selection clause would be unreasonable
and unjust, or that the clause arises from fraud or
overreaching, or that the enforcement would contravene a
strong
public policy of the forum where the suit is brought. Shelter
Mutual Ins. Co. v. Rimkus Consulting Grp., Inc. of Louisiana,
2013- 1977 ( La. 7/ 1/ 14), 148 So. 3d 871. We
find that plaintiffs
failed to meet their heavy burden of proving the venue selection
clauses should not be enforced.
Accordingly, the exception of
improper venue is granted, and this matter is remanded to the
trial courtChurch
Methodist
with instructions to transfer the claims of New Hope
and Concord Methodist Church against United
Methodist Foundation of Louisiana to East Baton Rouge Parish.
JEW
WIL
TPS

WA MLAL

NO. 2024 CW 0637

PAGE 2 OF 2

McClendon, and Chutz, JJ., dissents and would deny the
writ. We find the claims of the plaintiffs, New Hope Methodist
Church and Concord Methodist Church, against the relator, United
Methodist Foundation of Louisiana ( the " Foundation"), do not
allege a breach of the investment management agreements between
the plaintiffs and the Foundation, but rather allege a dispute
over ownership of the
funds previously held by the Foundation.
As such, we find the venue selection clauses contained in the
investment management agreements do not to this
apply matter.
Therefore, we believe the trial court denied
properly the
Foundation' s declinatory exception of improper venue.

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

Imp"