## Facts

- A group of individuals in the Seventh District of the Order of the Eastern Star sought to establish a new “Mercer Chapter” and obtain a permanent charter from the Order’s governing body (the Grand Chapter).
- Under the Order’s structure, a proposed chapter could operate temporarily under a dispensation from the Grand Patron, but “absolute admission” required issuance of a charter by the Grand Chapter.
- Plaintiffs operated as a provisional chapter under a dispensation while awaiting a charter.
- Officers and members of existing local chapters organized opposition to the proposed Mercer Chapter; a past Grand Patron was selected to lead efforts to prevent admission.
- Opponents arranged protest activity within the Order and communicated resistance to the Grand Chapter.
- The Grand Chapter ultimately refused to issue a charter to Mercer Chapter, ending the provisional effort and preventing plaintiffs from becoming permanent members through that chapter.
- Plaintiffs sued, alleging defendants maliciously conspired within the organization to block admission, causing effective expulsion, reputational harm, and related injuries.
- The trial court granted defendants summary judgment; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs’ status after the charter refusal was “expulsion” from existing membership or “exclusion” by denial of admission.
2. Whether members of a strictly fraternal organization may be liable in tort to aspirants for willful, concerted internal activity aimed at preventing their admission.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment for defendants.
- Plaintiffs’ situation was characterized as exclusion/denial of admission rather than expulsion.
- Concerted internal opposition to admitting a new chapter, without an independent actionable wrong, did not create tort liability to would-be members.

## Legal Principles

- In a strictly fraternal, voluntary association, decisions about initial admission (including whether to grant a charter to a proposed chapter) are generally not subject to damages claims by aspirants.
- The distinction between expulsion from vested membership and denial of initial admission is decisive; denial of admission ordinarily does not implicate judicially enforceable membership rights.
- Internal political activity within a private fraternal association—organizing resistance, protesting, and persuading the governing body—does not, by itself, constitute a legally cognizable interference with a protected interest.
- Allegations of malice are insufficient absent specific, independently actionable wrongful conduct (e.g., actionable defamation, unlawful coercion) tied to a recognized legal right or interest.

## Conclusion

The court held that plaintiffs, who never obtained permanent admission through a chartered chapter, could not recover damages from existing members for organized internal efforts that led the governing body to deny the charter, and it affirmed summary judgment for defendants.


Trautwein v. Harbourt, 40 N.J. Super. 247, 123 A.2d 30 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1956)