### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 8, 2001 Session PILGRIM EMMANUAL BAPTIST C HURCH 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 con solidation 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 name

d parties, plaintif

fs and defendan

ts, were enjoine

d from disturbing or

dis r upting any worship service or church meeting, and certain safeguards were place d on church funds and property. Thereafter, the church moved for summary judgment which was granted, thus effectively terminating the liti

gation. Mr. Bucking

ham appeals. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed
W ILLIAM H. I NMAN , S R
. J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which B EN H. C ANTRELL , P.J., M.S. and W ILLIAM C. K OCH , J R ., J., joined. Terry R. Clayton, N

ashville, Tennes see, for the app ellant, Albert Buc

kingham. 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 t o account for alleged fina

ncial irregular

ities. 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 who m it was submitted; the

Board, in accord

ance with-2-

accepted procedures, the

n referred the

Report to the entir

e membership

which approved

it by a vote of 114 to 12. The Chancell or gra nted 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 comp la int in a proceeding in the right of a corporation must be verified and allege with p artic ularity the deman d 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 th

e complain

t 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 comp laint was not verif

ied, and no writte

n demand was serv

ed by him requesting that a specific claim should be asserted on behalf of the church against its Pastor. There is n o 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 jud

gment of the Chanc

ery Court must be aff

irmed at the costs of the appellant, Alber

t Buckingham.

___________________________________ WILLIAM H. INMAN, SENIOR JUDGE