Local Councils and The Reversionary Rights of Their Property

[T2Eagle]

I think it's a very open question whether the charter provision really means what the claimants would like it to mean, or can be used the way the claimants would like it to be used.

This provision has only been in the charter agreements for a couple of years, so first and foremost no one has ever tested it in any kind of court to find out what it means.  I'm not sure that either side, certainly not the LCs, understood this to mean that, contrary to 100+ years of practice, they were effectively giving National the ability to claim their assets as its own on a whim.  Are there people at national who will testify that that's what even they intended when they added this provision?  A simple deposition that no that's not supposed to mean anything like that could torpedo the whole theory.

There are all sorts of issues here, I can think of a few but I'm sure there are more.

For this provision to grab LC assets BSA has to affirmatively revoke all the charters in the country.  Why would they ever do that?  Could even a court order them to do it?  What would that even mean?  Would that end the membership of every scout and scouter, what about the COs, I believe they're Chartered to the local council.  If the local council no longer has a charter do the COs?

What would be the response if they tried this?  I'm sure at the very hint of it my council would run to state court for injunctive relief barring them from a) even revoking the charter without cause, and b) barring them from grabbing the assets even if the charter is revoked.  I'll admit I don't know how far the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction might go, but if this stays in state court, or really courts --- 40 some of them, that's probably a pretty friendly venue for the local councils.  And regarding attorney fees, you might need or want high priced specialists for federal bankruptcy court, but practicing contract and property law in the state is what probably a quarter of the local Executive Board does for fun and profit.  They'd likely work pro bono, and the litigation costs for the council would be effectively zero.   Last I checked, the minimum  time from filing to a civil trial locally is greater than four years, six isn't unheard of.  And even if you get the cases removed to federal court the many and varied state laws would still govern the decisions.  The litigation would still take years, and you could easily get different rulings for different councils.

It's important to remember whenever referring to the LCs that there at least two different classes of them, those who face current lawsuits and those who don't.  And for those who don't there are many more choices available to them than simply being told here's what you're going to pay or else.

[fred8033]

8 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

I think it's a very open question ...

Absolutely agree.  Which points of law will be emphasized?  Which will yield a conclusion or just more litigation?  How is the court leaning to affect whether law is interpreted to reach a desired conclusion or applied to find the conclusion?  

[SiouxRanger]

Gee.  May 6 was a busy day.  All posts in a single day.

There are no posts after May 6.  Is there a reason?

It is difficult to follow the discussion at points as there seem to be allusions to information not posted.

I need to read this thread again.

This is an important, if not critical thread.

The issues raised here address the crux of the relationship between the LC's and the bankruptcy of National.