IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

August 8, 2001 Session

PILGRIM EMMANUAL BAPTIST CHURCH v. ALBERT BUCKINGHAM,

ET AL.

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County

No. 00-206-I (III) Ellen Hobbs Lyle, Chancellor

No. M2000-02377-COA-R3-CV - Filed September 19, 2001

The parties agreed to the consolidation of two cases for trial and appellate proceedings. The

plaintiffs in each case sought broad injunctive relief to correct alleged irregularities in the affairs of

the church. All named parties, plaintiffs and defendants, were enjoined from disturbing or disrupting

any worship service or church meeting, and certain safeguards were placed on church funds and

property. Thereafter, the church moved for summary judgment which was granted, thus effectively

terminating the litigation. Mr. Buckingham appeals.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed

WILLIAMH.INMAN,SR.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which BEN H.CANTRELL, P.J.,M.S.

and WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., J., joined.

Terry R. Clayton, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Albert Buckingham.

Cyrus L. Booker, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Pilgrim Emmanuel Baptist Church.

OPINION

I.

The dispositive issue is whether Mr. Buckingham, a member of the incorporated church, had

standing to file an action on behalf of the church against its Pastor, seeking to call him to account

for alleged financial irregularities.

During the pendency of this action the church appointed an Investigation Committee to look

into the allegations of misconduct. The Committee’s report, favorable to the Pastor, was approved

by a majority of the Board of Deacons to whom it was submitted; the Board, in accordance with
-2-

accepted procedures, then referred the Report to the entire membership which approved it by a vote

of 114 to 12.

The Chancellor granted the motion of the church for summary judgment, holding that the

action is a derivative one and that “no demand has been made in the substance and form required by

law” and that “no proper derivative claim has been asserted in this action.”

II.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 48-17-401(b) provides that

A complaint in a proceeding in the right of a corporation must be

verified and allege with particularity the demand made, if any, to

obtain action by the board of directors and either that the demand was

refused or why he did not make the demand.

Rule 23.06 of the Tenn. R. Civ. P. requires the complaint to allege with particularity the

efforts of the plaintiff to obtain from the directors or comparable authority, and if necessary, from

the stockholders or members, and the reasons for his failure to obtain the action or not making the

effort.

Mr. Buckingham’s complaint was not verified, and no written demand was served by him

requesting that a specific claim should be asserted on behalf of the church against its Pastor. There

is no evidence in the record that such demand would have been futile. See, Lewis v. Boyd, 838

S.W.2d 215 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).

It results that the judgment of the Chancery Court must be affirmed at the costs of the

appellant, Albert Buckingham.

___________________________________ 

WILLIAM H. INMAN, SENIOR JUDGE