§414D-89  Termination, expulsion, andsuspension.  (a)  No member may be expelled or suspended, and no membershipor memberships in such corporations may be terminated or suspended exceptpursuant to a procedure that is fair and reasonable, and is carried out in goodfaith.

(b)  A procedure shall be fair and reasonablewhen either:

(1)  The articles or bylaws set forth a procedure thatprovides:

(A)  Not less than fifteen days prior writtennotice of the expulsion, suspension, or termination and the reasons therefor;and

(B)  An opportunity for the member to be heard,orally or in writing, not less than five days before the effective date of theexpulsion, suspension, or termination by a person or persons authorized todecide that the proposed expulsion, termination, or suspension not take place;or

(2)  It is fair and reasonable taking intoconsideration all of the relevant facts and circumstances.

(c)  Any written notice given by mail shall besent to the last known address of the member shown on the corporation'srecords.

(d)  Any proceeding challenging an expulsion,suspension, or termination, including a proceeding in which defective notice isalleged, shall commence within one year after the effective date of theexpulsion, suspension, or termination.

(e)  A member who has been expelled orsuspended may be liable to the corporation for dues, assessments, or fees as aresult of obligations incurred or commitments made prior to the expulsion orsuspension.

(f)  If the expulsion or termination of membershipis the result of a judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding, no otherproceeding may be brought to challenge the expulsion or termination and in noevent shall this provision give rise to any right of redemption. [L 2001, c105, pt of §1; am L 2002, c 130, §43]

 

Case Notes

 

  Where church was not a hierarchical church, but acongregational church that made decisions by a vote of its members as set forthin its "petition for charter" of incorporation and by-laws, thechurch was governed by this chapter; thus, appellants should have been allowedto amend their complaint, had standing to contest their expulsion, and were notprecluded from doing so by the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine; also,doctrine did not bar appellants' complaint to the extent it did not requireresolution of controversies over church doctrine, law, or polity.  118 H. 165(App.), 185 P.3d 913.