This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Thank you.
First, it is important to understand that the legal meaning of the term Acharity@ is broader than the usual lay meaning applied to it.
12 Tex. Jur. 3d Charities ' 1 (1993).
Id. The legal meaning of charity has also been described as follows:
15 Am. Jur. 2d charities ' 3. (1976)
A Acharitable entity@ is defined by statute under Tex. Prop. Code Ann. ' 123.001(1) (Vernon 1995):
In addition, Acharitable organization@ is defined under the Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code section 84.003(1) as:
Tex. Prop. Code Ann. ' 123.002 (Vernon 1995), provides the Attorney General with standing to intervene in any proceeding involving a charitable trust:
1. What kind of instrument is involved?
2. What kind of action is requested? Look at the Petition. Some examples include:
3. Who are the Charitable Beneficiaries involved? Consider the following:
D. Have any of the charitable beneficiaries= names changed or were their organizations dissolved prior to the filing date of the present action? If this is the case, the equitable Doctrine of Cy Pres may be applicable.
Doctrine of Cy Pres - Cy Pres means Aas near as possible.@ In many instances, a trust for charitable purposes is intended to be perpetual. In this case it is not unlikely that a specific beneficiary named by the settlor may cease to exist or the purpose expressed by the settlor may become impracticable. Under these circumstances, the appropriate party may petition the court to amend the trust pursuant to the equitable Doctrine of Cy Pres. This doctrine dictates that the trust property be applied to another charitable purpose that is as similar to the original one as possible. This objective is preferable to permitting the trust to fail and becoming a resulting trust. The theory is that the settlor has the primary intent of achieving a stated charitable purpose. The secondary intent is the agent chosen by the settlor to achieve this purpose. If the secondary intent fails to achieve the primary intent of the settlor, then the court should select another agent to effectuate the settlor=s primary intent.4. What is the Estate worth?
5. What is the amount bequeathed or provided to each charitable beneficiary under the Will or Trust? Consider the following:
8. Do we possess a copy of all pertinent instruments in the file? These include all Wills at issue, Trust instruments, notice letters to charitable beneficiaries and/or evidence of notice, Answers or Waivers of Citation filed by charitable beneficiaries, court orders, if any, pertinent pleadings to our evaluation, etc.
9. Has the Petitioning party provided the Attorney General with the required notice under Tex. Prop. Code Ann. ' 123? This statute mandates that a copy of the Petition be forwarded to the Attorney General within 30 days of the date it is filed with the court, but no less than 10 days notice before any hearing.
The consequence of failing to provide the Attorney General with the required notice can result in the action being voidable by the Attorney General. This includes a Settlement, Judgment, Court Order, etc.
10. A Statue of Limitations does not apply to the Attorney General in this instance nor does the doctrine of laches. The Attorney General may intervene at any time after the action has been filed and void such action if it finds that it unjustly dilutes or dissolves the public=s interest in the charitable trust created by the underlying instrument.
1. Nature and Extent of the Harm
General Principle: We should select those cases involving the largest economic loss to prospective donors.
Factors to consider:
A. Is the injury strictly monetary, or are there health and safety issues?
B. How much money is involved?
C. How many donors are there?
2. Deterrent Value:
General Principle: We should select those cases with the greatest deterrent value. Factors to consider:
A. Will this case have high public visibility and therefore deter similar conduct?
B. Will this case have deterrent value in this particular industry, either because of the identity of the defendant or the nature of the practice?
C. Does this case involve a new or emerging problem, where aggressive enforcement now will deter future violations?
3. Characteristics of the Victims
General Principle: We should select those cases involving the most vulnerable victims.
Factors to consider:
A. Are the victims peculiarly vulnerable, such as senior citizens or low- income people?
B. Are the victims located in our state?
C. Do the victims have private remedies available to obtain redress?
D. Are the victims themselves partially culpable?
4. Nature of the Violation
General Principle: We should select those cases involving the most significant violations of state laws.
Factors to Consider:
A. Is this an isolated violation, or is there a pattern of illegal conduct?
B. Is the violation Atechnical,@ or is the conduct inherently fraudulent?
C. Does the public care about this issue?
D. Is this conduct common or customary in this industry?
E. Is this a new deceptive practice that can be eliminated before it becomes widespread?
F. Have we taken action against this kind of conduct in the past?
5. Identity of the Defendant
General principle: We should select those cases involving defendants with significant presence in the community or with prior histories of misconduct.
Factors to consider:
A. Is the defendant an individual or a corporation?
B. How large is the defendant, and how significant are the defendant=s actions in the community?
C. Has the defendant engaged in other deceptive practices?
D. Does the defendant have a history of fraudulent conduct?
E. Is the defendant located in Texas?
6. Defendant=s Intent General principle: We should select those cases involving the most intentional violations of law or intent to defraud the public. Factors to consider:
A. Was the defendant genuinely ignorant of the law, or confused about its application?
B. Is there evidence the defendant violated the law willfully?
C. Is the defendant=s conduct targeted at particularly vulnerable citizens?
7. The Cost to the Office
General principle: We should select those cases that best utilize our limited enforcement resources. Factors to consider:
A. How great a commitment of staff time will be required?
B. What cases will we have to forego in order to prosecute this case?
C. What out-of-pocket expenses will be required for travel, expert witnesses, depositions, etc?
D. Is the defendant unusually litigious and likely to drain our resources?
E. Have we so committed ourselves to this case or issue that failure to proceed will hurt our credibility?
8. Likelihood of Success on the Legal Issues
General principle: We should select those cases that involve the greatest likelihood of success, or that present the best opportunity for establishing helpful precedent.
Factors to consider:
A. Are the legal issues cut-and-dried, or is this a matter of first impression?
B. Are there proof problems with our witnesses, exhibits or other evidence?
C. If we litigate and fail, will the outcome set back our effectiveness elsewhere?
D. If we hope to make a new law, does this case present a good set of facts for doing so?
9. Likelihood of Effective Relief
General principle: We should select those cases involving the greatest likelihood of obtaining meaningful relief.
Factors to consider:
A. Are we likely to remove funds that should have been used for a charitable purpose?
B. Has the defendant all ready halted the process? Will an injunction be effective?
C. Is the defendant likely to flee?
D. If the defendant is located elsewhere, can we successfully enforce an injunction or collect a judgment?
E. Is the defendant bankrupt or judgment-proof?
F. Can this problem be solved through a civil action, or is criminal prosecution the only meaningful approach?
10. Availability of Relief Through Other Means
General principle: We should select those cases where victims have the least access to private remedies or other forms of relief.
Factors to consider:
A. Can relief be obtained effectively through private litigation, either by board members or by charitable beneficiaries?
B. Are there other charities with an incentive and standing to litigate the case?
C. Is there a potential for action by other state or federal regulatory agencies or criminal prosecutors that may remedy the situation?
D. Could a Acease and desist@ letter achieve acceptable results?
E. Could public exposure of the defendant=s practices without litigation achieve comparable results?
F. If some alternate form of relief is available, will it be available quickly enough to be meaningful?M/p>
11. Staff Considerations
General principle: We should select those cases that are most significant to the staff involved on the case, or that create the greatest potential for professional development.
Factors to consider:
A. How do the staff people handling this case feel about the case, the issue, the defendant, or the industry?
B. How many similar cases have we handled?
C. Are there things about this case that will make it a rewarding professional experience?
D. Is this case likely to cause staffing complications because of its size or timing, or because it conflicts with other assignments?
E. Will this case allow our staff to work with other states and help strengthen effective multi-state law enforcement?
12. Other Factors
A. Are other states pursuing this action?
B. Is there public demand or public pressure for our office to take action?
This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. If you would like access to the new version of the H2O platform and have not already been contacted by a member of our team, please contact us at h2o@cyber.law.harvard.edu. Thank you.