Sorority Chapter at U. of Utah May Close April 30

[SthrnZeta]

I would think that if the house belonged to the Org's Housing Foundation, then if they choose to close the chapter, the house still belongs to them and they have the right to sell it for whatever they choose. Where does the Univ. get off saying they should get the proceeds? Makes no sense to me... And I could definitely see the org wanting to get all they could out of a chapter they closed - especially if they closed it for reasons of low membership (low funds coming in). Any org would do the same - they are, afterall, a business as well as a sisterhood.

[irishpipes]

Originally Posted by SthrnZeta

I would think that if the house belonged to the Org's Housing Foundation, then if they choose to close the chapter, the house still belongs to them and they have the right to sell it for whatever they choose. Where does the Univ. get off saying they should get the proceeds? Makes no sense to me... And I could definitely see the org wanting to get all they could out of a chapter they closed - especially if they closed it for reasons of low membership (low funds coming in). Any org would do the same - they are, afterall, a business as well as a sisterhood.

I think the dispute is between Tri Delta's local housing corporation and their international organization - not the University. I think it is commonplace now for NPC groups to include a dissolution clause in corporation bylaws stating that if the chapter closes the assets revert back to the international organization, but probably there are older chapters without such clauses, hence the dispute.

[TSteven]

Originally Posted by SthrnZeta

I would think that if the house belonged to the Org's Housing Foundation, then if they choose to close the chapter, the house still belongs to them and they have the right to sell it for whatever they choose. Where does the Univ. get off saying they should get the proceeds? Makes no sense to me... And I could definitely see the org wanting to get all they could out of a chapter they closed - especially if they closed it for reasons of low membership (low funds coming in). Any org would do the same - they are, afterall, a business as well as a sisterhood.

The university has no say in this. The case is between the Theta Phi Housing Corporation and Delta Delta Delta IHQ. (Reread the article and/or exlurker's post.)

Theta Phi House Corp. officials argued that because money to build and maintain the home was raised and used within Utah, under state statute they are guaranteed ownership of the home, Malouf [Colleen Malouf, corporation officer for Theta Phi House Corp.] said.

"That's what we were basing our response on. Tri-Delta national never put any money on this chapter house," she said. "[The judge] didn't even look at the main part of our argument."

I'm sure some of our GC lawyers here can help out, but is the ruling based on the understanding that the Theta Phi House Corp. is acting on behalf (i.e. raising funds) of Delta Delta Delta as a whole? It seems to me that unless specific individuals - and only those individuals - are listed as the Theta Phi House Corp., then the House Corp. *is* Delta Delta Delta.

If Tri-Delta sells the home, the national group would hold those funds for 10 to 15 years to help establish another local sorority chapter, "if that looked like it was going to be viable," [Delta Delta Delta attorney John] Lund said.

I am pleased to see the funds will be held to help bring Delta Delta Delta back. That is a wonderful policy.