Opinion ID: 1933310
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Mae E. Harrison and Daniel N. Harrison.

Text: With respect to plaintiffs Mae E. Harrison and her husband, Daniel N. Harrison, we think that the materials submitted raise genuine issues of material fact precluding the entry of summary judgment against them. It appears from Mrs. Harrison's various submissions that she and her husband [29] were present at numerous sermons at which they were told to borrow and sell and to obey God. According to Mrs. Harrison, [y]ou heard it so much that if you did not give you felt embarrassed and humiliated. As a deacon, Mrs. Harrison was expected to put pressure on other parishioners to pledge and contribute $5,000 per working person. In this context, Elder Donald Meares visited the Harrisons' home and urged them to sell it, indicating that this was God's will. The Harrisons declined to do so, but they did obtain a second mortgage, pledged $20,000 to the building fund, and contributed $7,900. Referring to the gauntlet of deacons, Mrs. Harrison related that I felt compelled to walk through the line even though I did not want to. The Elders praised those who had met their pledges, but those who had not given were intimidated.[ [30] ] To be sure, Mrs. Harrison never stated in so many words, in any of the documents before us, that she and her husband made their contributions on account of the coercive conduct of which she complained. In response to the defendants' interrogatories, however, she asserted that she and her husband left the Evangel Temple because we had begun to believe that we were exploited and abused. She related that we were tired of being afraid to speak what we felt and we certainly did not want to give any more money. We felt oppressed and depressed about the whole experience. Construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, this account indicates a belief on Mrs. Harrison's part that prior donations had been the result of coercion and oppression. Since Mrs. Harrison felt compelled to run through the gauntlet and make her very substantial pledge, and since she felt oppressed about the whole experience, obviously including the donation of large sums of money, we are not prepared to hold, on summary judgment, that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the contributions resulted from the alleged oppression. Concededly, the Harrisons' evidence, as contained in the materials submitted in opposition to the motion, was less than overwhelming. The pressures on this couple, however, were not limited to appeals from the pulpit. The money was contributed in the context of, and implicitly in response to, the defendants' unrelenting demands. The amounts were large, and the Harrisons had to take out a second mortgage on their home. Although the issue is a close one, we hold that the Harrisons have alleged enough to avoid summary judgment.