Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
1Activity

Table Of Contents

0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
St Stanislaus v Archdiocese Decision

St Stanislaus v Archdiocese Decision

Ratings: (0)|Views: 46 |Likes:
Published by UrbanReviewSTL

More info:

Published by: UrbanReviewSTL on Mar 15, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/15/2012

pdf

text

original

 
STATE OF MISSOURI )) SSCITY OF ST. LOUIS )
 MISSOURI CIRCUIT COURTTWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT(City of St. Louis)
 BERNICE KRAUZE, STANLEYROZANSKI, ROBERT ZABIELSKI,EUGENE BRZYSKI, EDWARDFLOREK, JOSEPH SKUDRZYK,ARCHISHOP ROBERT J. CARLSON,and THE ARCHDIOCESE OF ST.LOUIS,Plaintiffs,vs.POLISH ROMAN CATHOLIC ST.STANISLAUS PARISH,Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff/Third-Party Plaintiff,andJOHN BARAS, WILLIAMBIALCZAK, MAREK BOZEK,RICHARD LAPINSKI, JANICEMERZWEILER, STANLEY NOVAK,and JOSEPH RUDAWSKI,Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs.)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))Cause No.0822-CC07847Division No. 11
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND JUDGMENTSummary
This case was tried by the Court, without a jury, on CountsI through VIII of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Petition, on CountsI through IV of the Third Amended Counterclaim of Defendant St.Stanislaus Corporation and on the Counterclaim of the sevenindividually named Defendants. Defendant St. StanislausCorporation had previously dismissed Counts V through XII of its
 
 2Third Amended Counterclaim, and all parties
 
dismissed all claimsfor attorney fees.Plaintiffs are the Archdiocese of St. Louis, the currentArchbishop of the Archdiocese and six former parishioners of St.Stanislaus Parish, including several who previously served asdirectors of the board of the St. Stanislaus Parish Corporation.
1
 The principal Defendant is the St. Stanislaus ParishCorporation. Also named as Defendants are seven individuals suedin their capacity as directors and officers of the St. StanislausParish Corporation board. Six of those individual Defendantswere parishioners of St. Stanislaus Parish. The seventh is apriest (now stripped of that title by the Catholic Church) whowas recruited and hired by the board of the St. Stanislaus ParishCorporation.In their Second Amended Petition, Plaintiffs seek thefollowing: In Counts I and II, a judgment declaring that the St.Stanislaus Parish Corporation’s 2001 and 2004 bylaws, as well asits 2008 proposed bylaws, are void because they conflict with thecorporation’s own charter, articles of agreement, and 1891bylaws, and a declaration restoring to the corporation itsoriginal 1891 bylaws; in Count III, inspection of the ParishCorporation’s books and records pursuant to §352.100 RSMo, whichgoverns religious and charitable corporations; in Count IV, aninjunction prohibiting amendments to corporate documents and
1
The distinction between the Parish and the Parish Corporation is animportant one.
 
 3misuse of funds or property while the case is pending, and alsoprohibiting future amendments to corporate documents in a mannersimilar to the 2001 and 2004 bylaw amendments; in Count V,against only the individual Defendants, a judgment removing thedirectors and officers of the board of the Parish Corporation forviolating their fiduciary duties to the corporation by notfollowing the dictates of the corporate articles, charter andbylaws and by not maintaining a Roman Catholic Church; and inCounts VI, VII and VIII, a judgment declaring that the St.Stanislaus Church property is subject to a charitable trust withthe Archbishop as trustee.In its Third Amended Counterclaim, Defendant St. StanislausParish Corporation seeks the following: In Count I, a judgmentdeclaring that the 2001 and 2004 bylaws are valid, and that theParish Corporation is forever free of any claims by theArchdiocese, and by any future Archbishops, against thecorporation and the St. Stanislaus Church property; in Count II,quiet title to the Church property; in Count III, money damagesfor conversion of certain personal property items removed fromthe Church; and in Count IV, return, or replevin, of certainpersonal property items missing from the Church. The individualDefendants have a single Counterclaim seeking a judgmentdeclaring, first, that they did not act improperly when theyamended the corporate bylaws and, second, that the directors and

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->