Motion to Intervene and Objection to Sale
December 19, 2024
Honorable Meredith S. Grabill
United States Bankruptcy Court
Eastern District of Louisiana
500 Poydras Street, Courtroom B-709
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
Re: In re: The Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of New Orleans
Case No. 20-10846, Section “A”
Subject: Motion to Intervene and Objection to Sale of 1941 Dauphine Street
Dear Judge Grabill:
I am writing as an interested party with a direct and substantial connection to the property located at 1941 Dauphine Street, New Orleans, currently under consideration for sale in the referenced bankruptcy case. I respectfully request the Court’s permission to intervene as an interested party and object to the proposed sale on the following grounds:
I. Personal and Historical Connection to the Property
I am a graduate of Holy Redeemer School, which operated at the 1941 Dauphine Street location for many years. The property served as a vital educational institution and community hub for generations. My experiences as a student and subsequent involvement in community efforts connected to the property have given me a profound understanding of its importance to the community and its historical significance.
Furthermore, the property’s origins are tied to the remarkable legacy of Marie Couvent, a free woman of color who bequeathed the land to the Archdiocese with a specific purpose: to serve as an enduring resource for education and community empowerment. Based on historical records and research, it is my understanding that the conditions of Marie Couvent’s bequest explicitly prohibit the sale of the property. This sale would contradict the original intent of her donation, disregarding her legacy and the values she championed.
Additionally, the school produced many prominent leaders, including Ernest "Dutch" Morial, the first African American mayor of New Orleans, and Keith Weldon Medley, a distinguished author known for his works on African American history, including the book on the Plessy v. Ferguson case. This legacy underscores the property’s significance as a site of empowerment and community development.
I also have a personal connection to the Georgetown 272, descendants of enslaved people sold by the Jesuits to fund Georgetown University. My ties to this history strengthen my commitment to preserving properties like 1941 Dauphine Street, which embody the resilience and contributions of African American communities.
II. Grounds for Motion to Intervene
Under Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, I request intervention as of right based on the following:
Direct Interest: As a graduate and a community advocate, I have a direct interest in the preservation and proper use of the property consistent with its historical and intended purpose.
Potential Impairment: The proposed sale will irreparably harm the property’s historical value and community role, undermining Marie Couvent’s bequest and the public trust.
Inadequate Representation: Neither the Archdiocese nor the Committees have addressed the historical conditions tied to the property or its broader significance to the community. Without my intervention, these critical considerations may not be adequately represented.
III. Objection to Sale of 1941 Dauphine Street
The motion to sell 1941 Dauphine Street for $1,100,000 to Cambronne Real Estate, LLC, raises significant concerns:
Violation of Bequest Conditions: Historical documents indicate that Marie Couvent’s donation explicitly prohibited the sale of the property. The Court should investigate these terms and assess whether the Archdiocese has the legal authority to sell the property without violating the trust of the original bequest.
Historical and Community Significance: The property is a cornerstone of the community and a tangible link to the legacy of a prominent historical figure. Selling it without exploring alternatives—such as preserving it as a historical site or repurposing it for community use—would result in the loss of a significant cultural asset.
Alternative Proposals: Community stakeholders, including myself, are willing to explore alternatives that align with the original intent of the bequest. For example, the property could be preserved as a co-working and community development space, continuing to benefit the local population while honoring its historical purpose.
Submitted Offer Activity: I submitted a detailed 100-page document to the Archdiocese, which is referenced in the court’s filings as part of Offer Activity #22. This proposal aligns with the property’s intended purpose and provides a viable alternative to the sale. I request the Court to review this document before proceeding further.
IV. Relevant Legal Precedents
There are several legal precedents where courts have upheld donor-imposed restrictions on property, preventing its sale or repurposing contrary to the donor’s original intent:
Precedents in Louisiana:
Tweedel v. Brasseaux (1983): The Louisiana Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to donor intent in property donations, ruling that such donations must strictly comply with the donor’s original conditions.
In re: The Edward Wisner Donation (2014): The Louisiana Court of Appeal reinforced the enforceability of terms in charitable trusts, requiring adherence to the donor’s specified purposes for property use.
Precedents in Other States:
Smithers v. St. Luke ‘s-Roosevelt Hospital Center (2001) – New York: The court recognized the donor’s right to enforce conditions on a charitable gift, emphasizing that donor intent is legally binding.
Carl J. Herzog Foundation, Inc. v. University of Bridgeport (1997) – Connecticut: The court upheld that conditions on gifts must be honored unless expressly waived by the donor or against public policy.
First United Methodist Church of Hyattsville v. United Methodist Church (1993) – Maryland: The court ruled that property trust clauses must be honored, reflecting the original agreements regarding property use within religious organizations.
Precedents Involving the Catholic Church:
Board of Trustees of Louisiana Annual Conference v. Revelation Knowledge Outreach Ministry (2012): The court upheld property ownership clauses in religious organizations, ensuring property use aligned with original agreements.
Society of the Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Lake Charles v. Catholic Mutual Relief Society of America (2023): This case illustrates the complexities of managing church property while adhering to original terms and agreements.
These precedents support the argument that Marie Couvent’s bequest—including conditions prohibiting the sale of 1941 Dauphine Street—must be honored. The Court should investigate and enforce these restrictions to protect her legacy and uphold the public trust.
V. Request for Relief
I respectfully request that the Court:
Grant me standing as an interested party to participate in this case.
Halt the sale of 1941 Dauphine Street until a full investigation into the conditions of Marie Couvent’s bequest is conducted.
Allow time for community stakeholders to present viable alternative proposals for the property’s use.
Direct the Archdiocese to provide all documentation related to the property’s bequest and conditions tied to its ownership.
VI. Conclusion
This property is not merely a financial asset; it is a symbol of historical resilience, community, and education. Marie Couvent’s legacy should not be undermined by a sale that fails to honor her intentions or the property’s significance. I urge the Court to recognize the importance of preserving this legacy and consider my motion to intervene and objection to the sale as a means to uphold justice and historical integrity.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I am available to provide additional documentation or testify in further proceedings as necessary.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Kim M. Jones
CC:
Counsel for the Debtor: Jones Walker LLP
Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors
Cambronne Real Estate, LLC
Archdiocese of New Orleans