We are not "tilting at windmills" here. Minnesota law is clearly on our side.
On appeal from summary judgment the appellate court reviews de novo whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of the law.
SaveWCAL does not have to challenge or contest the Findings of Fact in this case. The district court accepted SaveWCAL's facts as accurate. Judge Borene used SaveWCAL's facts almost verbatim in his Order. The facts of the case are not an issue in the appeal.
The only issue in our appeal is the application of the law to those facts.
The appellate court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was rendered (SaveWCAL).
When the material facts are not in dispute, as in this case, the appellate court makes an independent review of the application of the law by the district court. The appellate court is not required to defer to
the analysis of the district court on questions of law.
Here is where the law is on the side of SaveWCAL.
* Donors create a charitable trust simply by their act of making donations for a charitable purpose–here to create and sustain a public radio station dedicated to educational, spiritual and community service. The law does not require a trust to be incorporated as a condition to protecting the assets and purpose of the trust.
* A trustee is required to use donations ONLY for the purpose of the trust. A trustee is prohibited from using the trust for its own gain or purposes unrelated to the trust (e.g. chapel repairs and professorships).
* A trustee is allowed to transfer or sell assets in the administration of the trust to benefit the trust — but not to terminate or destroy it, which is what St. Olaf did by selling the essential and irreplaceable assets of the trust (license, tower, equipment, music library, etc.).
* A trustee is not allowed to terminate a trust without notifying the state's Attorney General and receiving court approval. St. Olaf did neither.
While federal law is not before the court of appeals, the court will be informed that federal law requires that a public radio station's community advisory board be allowed to review major policy decisions. WCAL's board was not even informed of any sale negotiations or decisions (clearly major policy decisions) until four days AFTER the sale was approved by the St. Olaf Board of Regents.
The violation of federal law is relevant to the issue of laches that St. Olaf and MPR have claimed applies in this case. However, only an innocent party may invoke the equitable defense of laches. SaveWCAL contends that neither St. Olaf nor MPR are "innocent parties" in the deliberate destruction of the WCAL charitable trust.
We firmly believe that if Minnesota law is followed, SaveWCAL will win the appeal.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
And how bizarre that the judge thought a group called "SaveWCAL" composed of many donors to that charitable trust doesn't have standing to challenge the liquidation of that charitable trust??