u

Michael J. Collins, Bar No. 65506

1
Julian B. Bellenghi, Bar No. 129942 0 (L H*
2 COLLINS & BELLENGHI, LLP
1201 Dove Street, Suite 570 OCT 1 1 2 0 0 7
3 Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 851-9311
4 Facsimile: (949) 851-9333
miaiA^
5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs //
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE^ASSEMBLIES OF GOD, a
6 California Non-Profit Religious Corporation; and NEW HOPE FAMILY
WORSHIP CENTER, a California Non-Profit Religious Corporation
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE - WESTERN DIVISION
9
RIVERSIDE BRANCH
10
11 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT CASE NO.^r'o
COUNCIL OF THE ASSEMBLIES OF
12 GOD, a California Non-Profit
Religious Corporation; and NEW
13 HOPE FAMILY WORSHIP CENTER, a
California Non-Profit Religious
14 Corporation COMPLAINT FOR:
15 Plaintiffs, 1. QUIET TITLE
2. DECLARATORY RELIEF
16 v. 3. ACCOUNTING
17 KENNETH M. PETERS, JR.; ALAN R.
SPITALNICK; ALL PERSONS
18 UNKNOWN, CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR
EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE,
19 LIEN, OR INTEREST IN THE
PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE
20 COMPLAINT ADVERSE TO
PLAINTIFFS' TITLE, OR ANY CLOUD
21 ON PLAINTIFFS' TITLE THERETO;
and DOES 1 to 500, inclusive,
22 Defendants.

23
24 Plaintiffs SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE
25 ASSEMBLIES OF GOD, a California Non-Profit Religious Corporation, and

26 NEW HOPE FAMILY WORSHIP CENTER, a California Non-Profit Religious

27 Corporation, allege as follows:

28
1

COMPLAINT
 3
1. Plaintiff, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE
ASSEMBLIES OF GOD [hereinafter DISTRICT COUNCIL], is now, and at all
times mentioned herein was, a California non-profit religious
corporation with its principal location at 17951 Cowan, Irvine,
located in the County of Orange, State of California and doing its
business in the County of Orange and State of California.

2. DISTRICT COUNCIL is, and at all times mentioned herein was,

a regional governing body of the Assemblies of God [AOG], a
hierarchical religious organization. In that regard, DISTRICT
COUNCIL has governing authority over certain AOG affiliated churches
in a specific geographic area, which includes Corona and other areas
of Southern California.

3. Plaintiff, NEW HOPE FAMILY WORSHIP CENTER [NEW HOPE] is and

at all times mentioned herein was, a California non-profit religious
corporation and an AOG affiliated church operating under the
jurisdiction of DISTRICT COUNCIL.

4. At all times relevant herein, NEW HOPE, has conducted its

religious services and related activities at certain real property
[hereinafter "the Property"] located at 803 South Lincoln Avenue,
Corona, California 92882, legally described as:
Parcel 3, as shown on Record of Survey on file in Book 42
page 15, of Records of Survey, Records of Riverside County
California:
EXCEPTING therefrom that portion granted to the City of
Corona in deed recorded April 1, 1965 as instrument No.
37481 of Official Records of Riverside County, California.
5. Since on or around November 4, 1997, NEW HOPE has been

COMPLAINT
 o
record title holder of the Property in fee simple, by virtue of a
grant deed recorded that date as Instrument No. 402488 of the
Official Records of Riverside County.
6. Under DISTRICT COUNCIL'S Constitution and Bylaws, any real
property held by a church under its jurisdiction is held in trust for
DISTRICT COUNCIL. Should said church disaffiliate from AOG, title to
said property reverts to DISTRICT COUNCIL.

7. Defendant, KENNETH M. PETERS, JR. [PETERS] is an

individual, over age 18, and at all times relevant hereto was, and
is, a resident of the County of Riverside.

8. Defendant, ALAN R. SPITALNICK [SPITALNICK] is an

individual, over age 18, and at all times relevant hereto was, and
is, a resident of the County of Riverside.

9. Up to on or around August 9, 2007, PETERS was the duly

appointed pastor of NEW HOPE and a minister duly authorized by AOG
and holding an AOG ministerial credential.

10. On August 9, 2007, PETERS renounced his AOG ministerial

credential, rendering him ineligible to serve as pastor at NEW HOPE
or at any other AOG affiliated church under the Constitutions and
Bylaws of both DISTRICT COUNCIL and NEW HOPE.
11. Up to August 15, 2007, SPITALNICK was a corporate officer
of NEW HOPE.
12. In or around August 2007, PETERS, SPITALNICK, and others
acting in concert with them, some of whom purported to be members of
the NEW HOPE'S board of directors and/or corporate officers,
attempted to disaffiliate from AOG, and obtain possession and control
of, and assert an ownership interest in, NEW HOPE'S assets,

COMPLAINT
 c o
including, but not limited to, the Property, certain bank accounts
and other personalty.
13. As a result of those actions referred to in SISI 10 and 12,
above, on or about August 15, 2007, DISTRICT COUNCIL, as authorized
by its Constitution and Bylaws and those of NEW HOPE, declared NEW
HOPE under the direct supervision and governance of DISTRICT COUNCIL,
replacing NEW HOPE's board of directors and corporate officers,
including PETERS and SPITALNICK and appointing an interim pastor.

14. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and upon such

information and belief allege, that at all times relevant hereto,
defendants, and each of them, were the agents, employees and officers
of each of the remaining defendants, and, in doing the things
hereinafter alleged, were acting within the scope, course, and
purpose of said agency or employment, or within the apparent scope of
said agency, employment, and position, and with the permission and
consent of each of the remaining defendants.

15. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of

those defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 500, inclusive, and
therefore sue these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs
will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities
when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and upon such
information and belief allege that each of these fictitiously named
defendants claims some right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the
Property and other assets referred to herein adverse to Plaintiffs'
title and its claims, and each of them, constitute a cloud on
Plaintiffs' title to that property.

///

COMPLAINT
 3
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
QUIET TITLE
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
16. Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference ff 1 through 15 o
this complaint as though fully set forth herein.
17. The defendants named as "all persons unknown,
claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or
interest in the property described in the complaint adverse to
plaintiffs' title, or any cloud on plaintiffs' title thereto" are
unknown to Plaintiffs. These unknown defendants, and each of them,
claim some right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the Property
adverse to Plaintiffs' title, and their claims, and each of them,
constitute a cloud on plaintiffs' title.

18. The basis of plaintiffs' title to the Property is

that grant deed which is referenced in 1 5, above, and DISTRICT
COUNCIL'S and NEW HOPE'S Constitution and Bylaws, by which NEW HOPE
holds the property in trust for DISTRICT COUNCIL.

19. Defendants claim an interest in the Property adverse

to plaintiffs, as evidenced by their continued efforts to conduct
business and other activities in the name of and on behalf of NEW
HOPE, despite lacking any authority do so.
20. Plaintiffs seek to quiet title against defendants' claims
to the Property as of August 15, 2007, the date DISTRICT COUNCIL
assumed control and governance of NEW HOPE and replaced its board of
directors and corporate officers, and pastor.

///

///

COMPLAINT
 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
21. Plaintiffs incorporates by this reference %1 1 through 20
of this complaint as though fully set forth herein.
22. An actual controversy has arisen and exists between
Plaintiffs and defendants concerning their respective rights and
duties in that Plaintiffs claim and defendants deny that (1) DISTRICT
COUNSEL had absolute authority to assert governance and control over
NEW HOPE and replace NEW HOPE'S board of directors and corporate
officers under the Constitutions and Bylaws of DISTRICT COUNCIL and
NEW HOPE and said actions cannot be reviewed by a civil court under
the ecclesiastical doctrine; (2) defendants have no right to operate,
or conduct business, or conduct religious or related activities as
NEW HOPE; and (3) DISTRICT COUNCIL and NEW HOPE as constituted by
DISTRICT COUNCIL have sole and exclusive right to title to and
possession of the Property and all other assets of NEW HOPE including
bank accounts held in NEW HOPE'S name.

23. DISTRICT COUNCIL and NEW HOPE desire a judicial declaration

that (1) DISTRICT COUNSEL had absolute authority to assert governance
and control over NEW HOPE and replace NEW HOPE's board of directors
and corporate officers under the Constitutions and Bylaws of DISTRICT
COUNCIL and NEW HOPE and said actions cannot be reviewed by a civil
court under the ecclesiastical doctrine; (2) defendants have no right
to operate, or conduct business, or conduct religious or related
activities as NEW HOPE; and (3) DISTRICT COUNCIL and NEW HOPE as ///
constituted by DISTRICT COUNCIL have sole and exclusive right to

COMPLAINT
 3
1 title to and possession of the Property and all other assets of NEW

2 HOPE including bank accounts held in NEW HOPE'S name.

3 24. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that

4 Plaintiffs can ascertain their rights in regard to those issues set

5 forth in n 22 and 23, above.

6 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

7 FOR AN ACCOUNTING

8 (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

9 25. Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference n 1 through 24 of

10 this complaint as though fully set forth herein.

11 26. Defendants have received tithes, offerings, and other

12 charitable donations from persons who intended that such donations be

13 given to NEW HOPE.

14 27. Defendants have not tendered said donations to NEW HOPE.

15 28. Defendants have exercised dominion and control over other

16 monies and other assets of NEW HOPE, including but not limited to

17 bank accounts, and utilized said monies and assets for purposes other

18 than the benefit of NEW HOPE.

19 29. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon

20 allege, that defendants, and each of them, owe a fiduciary duty to

21 NEW HOPE and DISTRICT COUNSEL in respect to such monies and assets.

22 30. Plaintiffs are not fully aware of all the monies and assets

23 of NEW HOPE obtained by defendants and said monies and assets have

24 not been tendered to plaintiffs by defendants. As such, defendants

25 owe plaintiffs payment of said monies and assets.

26 31. Plaintiffs are unable to ascertain the amounts of said

27 ///

28

COMPLAINT
 c o
1 monies and assets to which reference is made in KU 26-28 and 30,
2 above.
3 32. Therefore, plaintiffs are entitled to seek a full
4 accounting from defendants of such monies and assets.
5 WHEREFORE Plaintiffs pray:
6 1. For a judgment and judicial determination NEW HOPE as
7 constituted by DISTRICT COUNCIL is the sole owner of the
8 Property and DISTRICT COUNCIL holds the sole beneficial
9 interest in the Property and defendants have no ownership
10 of, or right to, or interest in the Property, whatsoever.
11 2. For a judicial determination that (1) DISTRICT COUNSEL had
12 absolute authority to assert governance and control over
13 NEW HOPE and replace NEW HOPE'S board of directors and
14 corporate officers under the Constitutions and Bylaws of
15 DISTRICT COUNCIL and NEW HOPE and said actions cannot be
16 reviewed by a civil court under the ecclesiastical
17 doctrine; (2) defendants have no right to operate, or
18 conduct business, or conduct religious or related
19 activities as NEW HOPE; and (3) DISTRICT COUNCIL and NEW
20 HOPE as constituted by DISTRICT COUNCIL have sole and
21 exclusive right to title to and possession of all assets of
22 NEW HOPE including bank accounts held in NEW HOPE'S name.
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28

COMPLAINT
 c
1 3. A full accounting.

2 4. For costs of suit herein;

3 5. For their attorneys' fees; and

4 6. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just

5 and proper.

6
7 Dated: October 9, 2007 COLLINS & BELLENGHI, LLP

8
9 By.
MICHAEL J. COLL/NS, ESQ.
10 JULIAN B. BELLENGHI, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
11 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT
COUNCIL OF THE ASSEMBLIES OF
12 GOD, and NEW HOPE FAMILY
WORSHIP CENTER
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

COMPLAINT
10/82/2007 06:10 9492528435 SOCALAG PAGE 02
.10/01/2007 12:19 94. 9333 COLLINS B E L L E ^ PAGE fll/81

VERIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OP R i v e r s i d e
I have raadttie foregoing C o m p i ^ f r f o r 1 . O u i o t T i t l e : 2 , D e c l a r a t o r y R e l i e f * and
3. Accounting „ — ^ _ ^ ^ and know its contents.
i~~! CHECK APPLICABLE PARAGRAPHS
• I am a party to this action. The matters stated In theforegoingdocument are true of my own knowledge except as to
those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters f believe themtobe true.
[xj Um GDanOfffoer n a p a r t n e r , CTla of Semtharn C a l i f o r n i a
D i s t r i c t of frfta a s s e m b l i e s of God ,
a party to this action, and am authorized to make this verification for and on Its behalf, and I make this verification for that
mason. • I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the foregoing document are
true. (ZZI The matters started in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge, except astothose matters which are
stated on Information and belief, and as to those matters I believe themtobe true.
C3 ram one of the attorneys for _*__ _ ^ _ ^ . _
a party to this action. Such petty is absent from the county of aforesaid where such attorneys have their offices, and 1 make*
this verification for and on behalf of that party for that reason, I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that
the matters stated in the foregoing document are true.
Executed on October S , 1QQ3 .at C o a t a Mesa .California.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of ma State of California that the foregoing is true and correct

James L. Chapman
Type or Print N i m e
PROOF OP SERVICE
1W3I p) CCP RtvWtd 5/1 4 1

STATS OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF

I am empfoyed in the county of _ ^ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , , State of Caltrbmla.
I am overthe age of .18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is: ,

On, _ _ . ,__——--—-—_ I Mfl/od tha foregoing document described as

on in this action
l I by placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated on the attached mailing list;
I I by pladng Q the original • a true copy thereof enclosed In sealed envelopes addressed as follows:

• B T MAIL
I I *l deposited such envelope In tha mail at _ _ _ _ , « _ * , ^ ^ _ . California.
The envelope was made* with postage thereon fully prepaid.
~ A e follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice af collection and processing correspondence for maiing.
Under that practice K would be deposited with U.S. postal service on th»t same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at
_____________«, _ _ California in the ordlna^ course of buatneaa, (am aware that on motion of the
party served, service Is presumed invalid If postal canoaTTstron date or postage meter date is mors than one day after data of
deposit for mailing in affidavit.
Executed on _ _ _ « _ . . « t ^ ^ _ _ _ _ — . ^ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ^ - _ _ _ _ _ , California.
|__] "(BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I delivered such envelope by hand to the offices of the addressee.
Executed on _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - — » * _ _ — - - ° * _. _ . ,C*Hforma.
1 "Iffltetal I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above fs true and correct.
S | (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was
rnada,

Type or Pifm Nam stgntture

•(•V MAIL BIQWUREMLflT U OF PERSON O W S m W ENVELOPE «
IWMLSLOT. VOX, O R U f t )
I F O R PERSONAL SERVICE SIGNATURE MUST M THAT OF MESXNSCR1
^>ffd ftev.7A9
 10/11/2007 11:09 9498519333 COLLINS BELLENGHI PAGE 02/02

CNI-010
ATTORNEY OP PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY {NWrtt, *t«e bpr number, and «cW««J;
~S FOP COURT WE ONLY

Michael Collins
—Michael Collins
Collins 6 Bellenghi, LLP
1201 Dov« S.treetr Suite 570
Newport Beach, CA 92 660
TELEPHONED- 9498519311 . FAXNO.: 949 B51 9333
ATTORNEY FOJjtfWww); Southern California District.of the AOG . a
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUMTY OF R i v e r s i d e «
f
STREET 4050 Wain S t r e e t
ADDRESS;
MAJLlN© AODRESS 4 0 5 0 M a i n Street
CITY AND ZIP COOS R i v e r s i d e , CA 9 2 5 0 1
BRANCH NAME, R i v e r s i d e B r a n c h
CASENAME: SPI.AD a n d NEW HOPE FAMILY WORSHIP v PETERS BYFAX
a n d SPITALNICK e t a l
Complex Case Designation CASE NUMBER
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET
C i G Unlimited • Limited; I -I Counter I J Joinder
(Amount ' (Amount Filed with first appearance by defendant JUDGE,
demanded demanded is (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1811) DEPT.:
exceeds $25.030) $25,000 or less]
Alt five (5) items below mustfeecompleted (see instructions on page 2),
1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case:
Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation
I I Auto (22) r' I Breach of contract/warranty (06) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 1800-1812 )
I J Uninsured motorist (45) [ I Collections (09) l_ I Antitrust/Trade regulation (03)
Other PI/PO/WD (Personal Inju ryfProperty i "1 insurance coverage (18) L I Construction defect (10)
Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort [ I Mass tort (40)
f l Other contract (37)
I 1 Asbestos (04) I" I Securities litigation (28)
Reel Property
[ I Product liability (24) Envircnmentel/Toxic tort (30)
I I Eminent domain/Inverse
I ] Medical malpractice (45) • condemnation (14) Insurance coverage claims arising from the
f I Other PI/PD/WD (23) above listed provisionally complex case
L. J Wrongful eviction (33)
Non-PI/PDWD (Other) Tort types (41)
L s J Other real property (26)
I I Businesstort/unfairbusiness practice (07) Enforcement of Judgment
f 1 Civil rights (08) Unlawful Detainer I I Enforcement of judgment (20)
L-^J Defamation (13) r _' 1 Commercial (31)
Miscellaneous Civil Complaint
I I Fraud (16) I I Residential (32)
l ~ l RICO (27)
L~ 1 Intellectual property (19) • Drugs (3a) • I J Other complaint fhcf spec/fled aoovej (42)
I _j Professional negligence (25) Judicial Review
[ I Asset forfeiture (05) Miscellaneous Civil Petition
• Other non-Pl/PD/wo ton (35) [ 1 Partnership and corporate governance (21)
l _ J Petition re: arbitration award (11)
Employment I | Other petition (not specified Bbove) (43)
[ 1 Wrongful termination (36) [ I Writ of mandate (02)
[_,, I Other employment (15) I I Other judicialreview(39)
This case I I is I x 1 is not complex under rule 1600 of the California Rules of Court. If case is complex, mark the factors
requiring exceptional judicial management:
a. I _ l Large number of separately represented parties d. I_ I Large number of witnesses
b. f " n Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. I i Coordinationwithrelatedactionspendinginoneormorecourts
issues that wilt be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states or counlTias, or in a federal court
c. f I Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. I _| Substantial post-judgment Judicial supervision
3. Type of remedies sought (check ell that apply):
a, l_^J monetary b. I x I nonmonetary: declaratory or Injunctive relief c. |_2£j punitive
4. Number of causes of action (spocify): 3 - Q U I E T T I T L E ; DECLARAT. OUNTING
5. This case P""! is \ x I is not a class action suit. /'.
Date:October 1 1 / 2007 fc /
Michael Colling : _
iTYPE OR PRINT UUiP.\

NOTICE i /
• Plaintiff must file this cover sheat with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claKns cases or cases filed
under the Probate, Family, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal, Rules of Court, rule 201.8.) Failure to file may result in
sanctions.
• File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule.
• Ifthls case is complex under rule 1800 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all
other parties to the action or proceeding.
^Unless this is a complex case, this cover sheet shall be used for statistical purposes only. Pliers
Judrdil council of cwromla C»!.RujMofcaun.rulss20).a, 1MPEM612'
CM-010|fi«v July 1, 20031 S o l u t i o n «T Standards of Judicial Administration, £ 19
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
4050 Main Street
Riverside, CA 92501
www.riverside.courts.ca.gov
NOTICE OF TRIAL DEPARTMENT ASSIGNMENT AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA VS PETERS/SPITALNICK

CASE NO. RIC482762

The above entitled case is ASSIGNED to the HONORABLE

Judge EDWARD D. WEBSTER in Department 05 for ALL PURPOSES.
The Case Management Conference described in Rules of Court 3.721 is
scheduled for 07/01/08 at 8:30 am/pm in Department 05.
The plaintiff/cross-complainant shall serve a copy of the Notice of
Trial Department Assignment and Case Management Conference on all
defendants/cross-defendants named or added to the complaint and file
proof of service thereof.
Any challenge pursuant to Section 170.6 of the Civil Code of Procedure
shall be made within twenty (20) days (15 days pursuant to 68616(1) GC
plus 5 days pursuant to 1013(a) CCP) from the date of this notice of
assignment, or if the party has not yet appeared, then within fifteen
(15) days after the party's first appearance.
If this case has been assigned to a Judge Pro Tempore, whose
appointment as Commissioner is in accordance with Article Six, Section
Twenty-two of the Constitution of this State and who has been
appointed as a Temporary Judge pursuant to an order of the Court
under the authority of Article Six, Section Twenty-one of the
Constitution and Section 259 of the Civil Code of Procedure; within
ten (10) days of the date of this notice, the parties MUST file a
Notice of Non-Stipulation if they do not stipulate to the hearing of
pre-trial, trial and all subsequent post-trial law and motion matters
before the Commissioner.

Failure to file such notice within (10) days shall be deemed

acceptance of the assignment.
DATE OF NOTICE: 10/11/07

CLERK'S CERTIFICATE
I, Clerk of the above entitled Court, do hereby certify that on this
date, I provided the plaintiff(s) or plaintiffs' attorney of record
with a copy of the foregoing NOTICE.

CLERK OF^THE COURT

Date: 10/11/07