Ian Rolland, receiver for Oakwood, said in a phone interview he thought last week's hearing to review the proposals for Oakwood's future went well. He left court feeling very positive.

"Everyone seemed to be on a mind to get things done. The judge seemed to do his homework. He set the stage for us to move forward," he said.

Still it's too early to tell if Oakwood will be open for business this summer. There is still the proposal with Ambassador Enterprises LLC to work out, as well as get the lawsuit with the Indiana United Methodist Conference settled before Oakwood's doors open.

"Ambassador Enterprises LLC has the financial wherewithal to make this happen and wants to make it happen," Rolland said, adding the company is willing to, with the other parties, to get Oakwood open and operational.

"I think the longer it stays empty, it just deteriorates," Rolland said. Still once the buildings have been rehabilitated, it will take some time to get Oakwood running. Rolland pointed out marketing will have to be done up front before the property can welcome guests again.

Along with the lawsuit against the conference, the property's covenants will also be significant issues to be worked out, especially the restrictions on alcohol.

There is hope the state, which has formally withdrawn its proposal, can come back to the table. Rolland said he "was a bit disappointed at the (state's) withdrawal. I took it personally. They're good to work with. They're sharp people. I have a relationship with them and I think they still have things to offer."

Rolland noted Judge Duane Huffer was also disappointed as he sees the state as being the solution to the covenant problem since the state has powers to remove the covenants.

"The majority of people are anxious to work on the issues," Rolland said, noting the Oakwood property owners have been very helpful as have town leadership as to the idea of having the Town of Syracuse annex the Oakwood property.

"I think people want to get this thing resolved. I think people are tired of fighting over it. To get this solved will require some give and take," Rolland said.

Most of the people Rolland has worked with are concerned about Oakwood's future.

Rolland praised his advisory committee, saying everyone has been terrific to work with. Members of the advisory board are Randy Tobias, former CEO of Lily; Frank Walker, Rolland's neighbor on Lake Wawasee and a college friend; Steve Brodi, who was in charge of real estate at Lincoln Financial when Rolland was there; Larry Lane, past president of the Oakwood Property Owners Association; and Sallie Rowland, involved in hotel design and hospitality.

Rolland noted none of the advisory committee members are receiving pay for their work. They are donating their time because they care about what happens to Oakwood.

Although Rolland is being paid for his time, he plans to donate that money to charity. "I took the job on in the spirit of a volunteer. I have a tradition in my life with Oakwood and I care about what happens to it," he said.

Since June 14, 2010, when Ian Rolland was selected as receiver for Oakwood, the Indiana United Methodist Conference, formerly the North Indiana United Methodist Conference, has had no complaints about the Oakwood property being placed into receivership, until Rolland made his third report to the court Dec. 28.

A search through the court file shows the conference didn't file any complaints when Rolland made his first report to the court Sept. 30 and when he made his second report to the court Nov. 18. There was no response when the court ordered the conference to deed the Oakwood property back to the Oakwood Foundation, which Rolland represents as receiver, Oct. 14.

The Dec. 28 hearing was for Rolland to present his third report to the court and make suggestions as to which proposal the court should consider for the property's future. Minutes prior to the hearing, Stephen Fink, council for the conference, presented its responses to Rolland's recommendations.

IUMC's argument is the United Methodist Foundation for Adult Christian Ministries Inc. "was conceived, incorporated and capitalized by the conference to operate a United Methodist Retreat Center" and the property was previously owned by the conference.

To booster its argument, the conference states the articles of incorporation for Oakwood, amended Sept. 29, 1993, provide in article II "the corporation is organized exclusively for religious purposes including for such purposes: the development and maintenance of a regional United Methodist Retreat Center to provide programs and services to meet the vital spiritual needs of all adults seeking opportunities for Christian nurture and growth.

"To provide facilities in which United Methodist Congregations and other Christian denominations may come to worship God and to meditate and plan for their own spiritual journeys.

"To provide programming for adults which will be focused on Christian spiritual formation for persons going through divorce, bereavement, illnesses and persons seeking guidance in making ethical decisions at home and in business."

However, article III states the purpose of the corporation being formed was "to maintain and develop an appropriate recreational environment in which Christian ministries may thrive." There is no mention of Methodist ministries mentioned in article III.

Mac Fife, former board president, also testified May 10, 2010, there is nothing in Oakwood's 1993 by-laws stating if Oakwood dissolved the property would go back to the conference.

Further in article 12 of the Articles of Incorporation state should Oakwood fail, "distributions of assets on dissolution or final liquidation will go to other non-for-profit religious organizations." Again, no mention of the conference regaining the property.

The conference further argues the appointment of a receiver is unconstitutional. Claiming the court lacks jurisdiction, the conference argues to the appointment of a receiver and to the receiver making the determination as to whether the corporate purpose of the Methodist Foundation can be attained. The conference also stated it objects to the court providing the receiver with instructions concerning the management of the Methodist Foundation.

However, when Rolland was appointed receiver June 14, the conference had no objection at the time. At the time of his appointment, Rolland specifically asked what the court expected of him. The court instructed him to find the best way to get Oakwood running and available to the public.

In court documents, the conference states "This lawsuit was commenced by Howard Brembeck (the plaintiff in the case) after members of the Methodist Foundation Board of Directors refused to resign and allow Mr. Brembeck to appoint a new board of directors. This court has found that former members of the board of directors of the Methodist Foundation made mistakes with respect to the corporate governance of the Methodist Foundation.

"Whatever those mistakes they may have made certainly were not as egregious as what was proposed by Mr. Brembeck. Certainly the conduct of previous directors does not justify the court taking absolute control over a religious corporation and its property."

The court did find the mistakes made by the board egregious enough to permanently remove them from ever serving on an Oakwood board of directors again. The court also found the property transfer to the conference to be illegal.

The conference goes on to argue the only remaining causes of action before the court are Brembeck's allegations of breach of contract, promissory estoppel and public charitable trust and these causes should be set for trial as soon as possible.

The conference argues Brembeck's donations were not restricted and no charitable trust exists. To boost its claim, it refers to acknowledgement letters from members of the Oakwood Foundation to Brembeck for his donations. In one letter it states "You have not imposed any material restrictions upon the Foundation in connection with your gift."

The conference then refers to Brembeck's federal income tax returns for 1994-1999. The conference argues Brembeck took deductions on his charitable donations. It also argues he was supposed to fill out Form 8283, which requests additional information for donations more than $500. On Form 8283 Brembeck was supposed to complete lines 3a-3c if he "attached restrictions to the right to the income, use, or disposition of the donated property." He was also required to "attach a statement explaining the terms of any agreement or understanding regarding the restriction and whether the property is designated for a particular use."

Those lines were blank, which the conference argues indicates "Brembeck attached no restrictions to the right to the income, use or disposition of the donated property, nor was there any agreement or understanding with respect to the donated property, nor was the property designated for any particular use."

However, there has been prior testimony stating the conference approached Brembeck prior to the formation of the Oakwood Foundation asking for donations to renovate the inn. He refused to give the conference any money based on past issues with how the conference used his donations.

Court documents show Brembeck only donated funds after being approached by his brother Cole and being assured the funds would not be going to the conference, but to be used for a non-denominational Christian retreat center.

The matter of Brembeck's tax returns have come before the court before. Questions arose as to who prepared Brembeck's tax returns and if he saw drafts of them prior to signing them.

Rolland is to make a report to the court at 1:30 p.m. Monday, April 18, regarding his work with Ambassador Enterprises LLC on its proposal for the Oakwood property.

Mail-Journal Archives