NEW HOPE METHODIST CHURCH NO. 2024 CW 0637 VERSUS PAGE 1 OF 2 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LOUISIANA ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, SOUTH CENTRAL JURISDICTION

CONSOLIDATED WITH CONCORD METHODIST CHURCH VERSUS

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE SEPTEMBER 16, 2024 LOUISIANA ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED METHODIST' CHURCH, SOUTH CENTRAL JURISDICTION

In Re: United Methodist Foundation of Lousiana, applying for supervisory writs, 20th Judicial District Court, Parish of West Feliciana, No. 24739 c/ w 24740.

BEFORE: McCLENDON, WELCH, CHUTZ, LANIER, AND STROMBERG, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED WITH ORDER. The portion of the trial court' s June 18, 2024 judgment denying the declinatory exception of improper venue filed by. United Methodist Foundation of Louisiana hereinafter the " Foundation") is We reversed. find that the claims of plaintiffs, New Hope Methodist Church and Concord Methodist Church, against the Foundation allege a breach of investment management agreements between the plaintiffs and the Foundation, judicial which contain a venue selection clause requiring any dispute arising from the agreements to be brought in East Baton Rouge Parish. Venue selection clauses, also referred to as forum selection clauses, are prima facie valid, legal, and binding in Louisiana, and a party seeking to set aside such a provision bears a heavy burden of proof. Such a clause should be enforced unless the resisting party clearly proves that enforcement of the forum -selection clause would be unreasonable and unjust, or that the clause arises from fraud or overreaching, or that the enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of the forum where the suit is brought. Shelter Mutual Ins. Co. v. Rimkus Consulting Grp., Inc. of Louisiana, 2013- 1977 ( La. 7/ 1/ 14), 148 So. 3d 871. We find that plaintiffs failed to meet their heavy burden of proving the venue selection clauses should not be enforced.

Accordingly, the exception of improper venue is granted, and this matter is remanded to the trial courtChurch Methodist with instructions to transfer the claims of New Hope and Concord Methodist Church against United Methodist Foundation of Louisiana to East Baton Rouge Parish.

JEW WIL TPS WA MLAL

NO. 2024 CW 0637 PAGE 2 OF 2

McClendon, and Chutz, JJ., dissents and would deny the writ. We find the claims of the plaintiffs, New Hope Methodist Church and Concord Methodist Church, against the relator, United Methodist Foundation of Louisiana ( the " Foundation"), do not allege a breach of the investment management agreements between the plaintiffs and the Foundation, but rather allege a dispute over ownership of the funds previously held by the Foundation.

As such, we find the venue selection clauses contained in the investment management agreements do not to this apply matter.

Therefore, we believe the trial court denied properly the Foundation' s declinatory exception of improper venue.

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

Imp"