This makes no sense to me. Presumably she was happy with the church during the years she attended it. If she stops donating after leaving the congregation, then she’s not supporting its current direction.
Yes. I don’t think she will have much success. She would have to prove that the church had deceived her while they were taking her money. If a church goes bad they should not be liable for the time when they weren’t bad.
What about that makes no sense? She, along with half the congregation, were disgusted with the pastors and felt their church and alter were defiled. The church was owned by her and the other parishioners so she feels she deserves to be paid her portion of ownership. No, it won't get anywhere in the courts, but I understand what she feels is her right.
From what I can see, she feels that the pastors (and possibly the upper ranks of leadership) came into the church, were hired with the understanding that they accepted the way things had always been for the many years she had been a member, but simply went and changed things with no objection from the main leadership of the church. She had contributed money with one objective (preaching of the Gospel), and somebody came along and substituted another.
This is my understanding of it. I’m not sure she has any cause of action, but I think it’s good to do this anyway. I have a friend who worked for a big Protestant organization that survived on the bequests of little old ladies from the Heartland, and had gone rogue and between spending insane amounts on personal perks for the head honchos and buying into bizarre social justice projects, was spending the money of these women in ways they would never, ever have wanted.
Sometimes estates have sued for misuse of funds, although I’m not sure of their success rate. Maybe that’s how she should approach it.