Holt v. College of Osteopathic Physicians & Surgeons
40 Cal. Rptr. 244, 394 P.2d 932, 61 Cal. 2d 750 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Minority trustees of a charitable corporation have legal standing to bring an action against the majority trustees to enjoin a breach of the corporation's charitable trust. The Attorney General does not have the exclusive power to enforce charitable trusts.
Facts:
- The College of Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons (COPS) is a charitable corporation whose articles of incorporation state its purpose is to conduct an osteopathic medical and surgical college.
- The complaint alleges a clear distinction between osteopathic and allopathic medicine, with osteopathy placing special emphasis on the musculoskeletal system and manipulative therapy.
- For decades, COPS operated as an osteopathic college and solicited donations from the public and osteopathic associations on the representation that it was dedicated to promoting osteopathy.
- A majority of the COPS trustees passed resolutions to change the college's name to 'California College of Medicine,' removing the word 'osteopathic.'
- The majority trustees also began the process of seeking accreditation from the American Medical Association to become an allopathic medical school.
- These actions were part of a larger agreement with the California Medical Association and California Osteopathic Association intended to 'remove the distinction' between the two schools of medicine in the state.
- Three minority trustees of COPS alleged that these actions constituted a wrongful diversion of corporate assets and a breach of the college's charitable purpose.
Procedural Posture:
- Three minority trustees of the College of Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons (COPS) sued the 23 majority trustees in California state trial court.
- The complaint sought to enjoin the alleged breach of a charitable trust and requested declaratory relief.
- The Attorney General filed an answer stating that his office had reviewed the matter and concluded legal action was not warranted.
- The defendant trustees filed a demurrer to the complaint, challenging the plaintiffs' capacity to sue.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and entered a judgment of dismissal against the plaintiffs.
- The plaintiff trustees (appellants) appealed the judgment of dismissal to the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do minority trustees of a charitable corporation have legal standing to sue the majority trustees to enjoin an alleged breach of the charitable trust, even when the Attorney General has declined to act?
Opinions:
Majority - Traynor, J.
Yes. Minority trustees of a charitable corporation have the capacity to sue majority trustees to enjoin a threatened breach of the charitable trust. The prevailing view, supported by the Restatement of Trusts, is that the Attorney General's power to enforce a charitable trust is not exclusive. Statutes granting supervisory power to the Attorney General do not preclude suits by trustees, who have a fiduciary duty and a special interest in upholding the trust. Allowing trustees to sue provides a vital, supplementary enforcement mechanism, as the Attorney General may not be aware of all breaches or may apply an incorrect legal standard, as was done here when the AG considered only whether the changes were 'detrimental to the public interest' rather than whether they violated the specific trust purpose. There is no sound reason to treat trustees of a charitable corporation differently than trustees of a charitable trust in this context, as both are fiduciaries responsible for administering trust assets.
Dissenting - McComb, J.
No. Only the Attorney General has the capacity to bring an action to correct noncompliance with a trust assumed by a charitable corporation. The California Corporations Code specifically tasks the Attorney General with instituting proceedings to correct any departure from a charitable corporation's purpose. This specific provision grants the Attorney General sole authority and displaces any general corporate law that might otherwise permit such a suit. The court should adhere to the doctrine of stare decisis and follow the precedent set in George Pepperdine Foundation v. Pepperdine, which held that the Attorney General is the only party qualified to maintain such an action. The legislature has had ample opportunity to change this law and has not done so, indicating its acceptance of the established rule.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the avenues for enforcing charitable trusts in California by empowering internal fiduciaries to act as watchdogs. It rejects the notion that the Attorney General is the exclusive enforcer, establishing a dual system of oversight where both the state and trustees can protect a charity's mission. The ruling provides a crucial check on the power of majority boards, ensuring that the specific intent of donors is not subverted, especially in situations where the Attorney General lacks the resources or willingness to intervene. By disapproving a contrary precedent, the court clarified the law and strengthened the legal protections for charitable assets and purposes.
