§414D-89 Termination, expulsion, and suspension. (a) No member may be expelled or suspended, and no membership or memberships in such corporations may be terminated or suspended except pursuant to a procedure that is fair and reasonable, and is carried out in good faith.
(b) A procedure shall be fair and reasonable when either:
(1) The articles or bylaws set forth a procedure that provides:
(A) Not less than fifteen days prior written notice of the expulsion, suspension, or termination and the reasons therefor; and
(B) An opportunity for the member to be heard, orally or in writing, not less than five days before the effective date of the expulsion, suspension, or termination by a person or persons authorized to decide that the proposed expulsion, termination, or suspension not take place; or
(2) It is fair and reasonable taking into consideration all of the relevant facts and circumstances.
(c) Any written notice given by mail shall be sent to the last known address of the member shown on the corporation's records.
(d) Any proceeding challenging an expulsion, suspension, or termination, including a proceeding in which defective notice is alleged, shall commence within one year after the effective date of the expulsion, suspension, or termination.
(e) A member who has been expelled or suspended may be liable to the corporation for dues, assessments, or fees as a result of obligations incurred or commitments made prior to the expulsion or suspension.
(f) If the expulsion or termination of membership is the result of a judicial or nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding, no other proceeding may be brought to challenge the expulsion or termination and in no event shall this provision give rise to any right of redemption. [L 2001, c 105, pt of §1; am L 2002, c 130, §43]
Case Notes
Where church was not a hierarchical church, but a congregational church that made decisions by a vote of its members as set forth in its "petition for charter" of incorporation and bylaws, the church was governed by this chapter; thus, appellants should have been allowed to amend their complaint, had standing to contest their expulsion, and were not precluded from doing so by the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine; also, doctrine did not bar appellants' complaint to the extent it did not require resolution of controversies over church doctrine, law, or polity. 118 H. 165 (App.), 185 P.3d 913 (2008).