Can religious beneficiaries intervene in secular charitable trust proceedings? In re United Effort Plan Trust Explained

In In re United Effort Plan Trust, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether FLDS church members and bishops could intervene as of right in ongoing administration of a charitable trust that had been reformed according to secular principles.

Background and Facts

The United Effort Plan Trust was originally established in 1942 by FLDS members who deeded properties to the trust. After allegations of trustee mismanagement, the district court removed the trustees in 2005, appointed a special fiduciary, and reformed the trust in 2006 to operate according to neutral principles of law rather than religious doctrine. When the special fiduciary sought court approval to sell Berry Knoll Farm in 2009, FLDS church members and bishops filed motions to intervene under rule 24(a), claiming religious stewardship interests in the property.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two primary issues: (1) whether Utah Code section 75-7-405(3), which allows “others” to maintain proceedings to enforce charitable trusts, confers an unconditional right to intervene under rule 24(a)(1), and (2) whether the proposed intervenors possessed sufficient interests under rule 24(a)(2) to warrant intervention.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Supreme Court clarified the standard of review for intervention decisions, establishing that legal determinations receive correctness review while factual findings are reviewed for clear error. For rule 24(a)(2) determinations, the court applied deferential review to fact-intensive assessments while reviewing pleading-based “interest” claims with less deference. The court concluded that religious interests, while important in the abstract, did not constitute legally cognizable interests sufficient for intervention in a trust governed by secular principles. The reformed trust explicitly stated that administration “shall not be based on religious doctrine or practice.”

Practice Implications

This decision establishes that intervention under rule 24(a)(2) requires more than abstract interests—movants must assert claims that could provide a basis for legal relief. The court’s nuanced approach to standards of review provides guidance for challenging intervention denials, emphasizing that different aspects of the rule 24(a)(2) analysis receive varying degrees of appellate deference.