An appeal filed with the Utah Supreme Court says a district judge went too far when she stripped a polygamous sect's charitable trust of its religious purpose and denied church members "an effective voice" in court proceedings.

In rulings in the United Effort Plan Trust case, 3rd District Judge Denise Lindberg has sanctioned "continued violations" of constitutional rights of thousands who belong to the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the appeal claims.

The appeal was filed Aug. 26 by attorneys representing five FLDS members, including sect bishops Lyle Jeffs and James Oler. Lindberg refused to allow the men to participate in the case.

The UEP Trust holds virtually all property in Hildale, Utah; Colorado City, Ariz., and Bountiful, British Columbia. The court took over the trust in 2005 amidst allegations FLDS trustees had mismanaged, and failed to protect, its assets.

Lindberg reformed the trust that same year. In doing so, the appeal states, she eliminated its religious underpinnings and overrode a clause that required its holdings be turned over to the FLDS church if the trust failed or its "essential religious purpose" became impossible or impracticable.

The judge went on to "compound" her error in subsequent rulings that "underscore the decidedly non-neutral effect of the 'reformation,' " the appeal states.

It says those decisions include: Funding a "war chest against the FLDS," endorsing


Advertisement

a religious test for distribution of property deeds, rejecting settlement proposals aimed at ending the trust dispute and approving the sale of Berry Knoll Farm, a key trust asset.

On Aug. 24 Lindberg ordered that the farm be auctioned to the highest bidder to pay $3 million owed to fiduciary Bruce R. Wisan, who manages the trust, and his attorneys.

Mark Callister, one of Wisan's attorneys, said they are aware of the appeal and are "preparing to respond."

In the appeal, FLDS attorneys urge the high court to take the case because it raises "novel questions" about the limits of state power in administering religious charitable trusts, a matter with legal and public policy implications.

They argue that Lindberg erred in denying their clients the chance to participate in the case given other rulings that found some parties may have an interest in a charitable trust that is distinct from that of the public at-large.

brooke@sltrib.com