Category: church splits

The “Waring Blender”

The song Poor, Poor Pitiful Me, lyrics by Warren Zevon, and sung by Linda Ronstadt and covered later by Terri Clark related the woes of a woman that lacked mate picking skills:

Well I met a man out in Hollywood

Now I ain’t naming names

Well he really worked me over good

Just like Jesse James

Yes he really worked me over good

He was a credit to his gender

Put me through some changes Lord

Sort of like a Waring blender

Churches with poor pastor picking skills suffer similarly.  Churches, no matter how small, that do not generally follow their governance documents, typically corporate bylaws, experience similar woes.

In Iglesia Pentecostal Filadelfia, Inc. v Rodriquez, Slip Op. (Tex. App. 13th, 2021), the trial court dismissed the case because it could not tell who was in governing control of the church.  A warranty deed clearly indicated the church owned the church property.  But, the failure to follow the bylaws in electing governing board members, officers and pastors left the Court with no means to determine who was in charge.  The Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine, the court held, precluded the court from resolving the dispute in the absence of a record.  The pastor even admitted he had been unaware of the existence of any bylaws until the lawsuit was filed in 2018 even though the church was founded and incorporated in 1987 by his parents.  The appellate court affirmed.

The only solution for a church in such a situation is to hold a congregational meeting, elect a new board, and document its decision.  The documentation probably would need to be a resolution accompanied by a signature by every voting member of the church.  Adopting a formal church membership roll in the same manner might be required to allow verification of the congregational vote.  Any church, no matter how large or small, that does not document its governance consistent with its governing documents at least to some extent risks losing control of its property, its assets and its funds to a faction or even an interloper.  Such documentation is simple, freely available on the internet or other sources, and need be updated only a few times a year.  An official copy should be kept at the church offices and a digital copy off site.  The digital copy should be updated at least annually.

PROTECTING PAST GENERATIONS OF BELIEVERS

Generally, the local church in a hierarchical denomination owns its own property but holds it in trust for the denomination.  This is often also true in denominations that are not hierarchical but in their governing documents require the local church to own its property but hold it in trust for the denomination.  The rationale for such trust provisions is that generations of members of the local church, that also thought they were members of the denomination, gave offerings based on that premise.  The attempt by a future generation of local church members or leaders to divorce from the denomination does not, so the rationale goes, keep faith with the generations that came before.

In Presbyterian Church of the Palisades v Hwang, Slip Op. (NJ App. 2021), the local church lost membership and financial stability to the point it was about to lose its property to foreclosure.  The local church managed to salvage the situation by selling the property to a third-party non-church entity.  The funds paid by the third-party non-church entity were placed in escrow.  The litigation proceeded over who was entitled to the purchase funds placed in escrow.  The local church corporation claimed to be the owner but so did the denomination.  The mortgage default by the local church triggered the trust clause in the denominational governing document.  As a result, the local church was no longer owner of the property.  The denomination assumed the role as owner under the trust provision.  The “owner” would be entitled to the escrowed purchase funds.  The trial court determined under the trust provision the denomination was the “owner.”  The appellate court affirmed the trial court and ordered the escrowed funds released to the denomination.

If the denomination is hierarchical, most courts will under the “deference doctrine” defer to the decisions of the denomination regarding disposition of local church property.  The denominational governing documents generally compel the result.  If the denomination is not hierarchical, the “neutral principles of law doctrine” will generally compel the enforcement of the denominational governing documents.  If the denominational governing documents require that the local church owns its property in trust for the denomination, Neutral Principles of Law will generally dictate that the denomination is the owner.  There are few exceptions, the most recognized being when the deed filed of record expressly excluded the ownership of the denomination and the denomination approved the deed.

SUING THE RIGHT PERSON

This is sometimes harder than might be expected.  Lawyers instinctively seek to sue the deep pockets because most wrongdoers are gone, dead or insolvent.  In church cases, especially those arising from some sort of church split, the right defendant might not be the entity.  It might not be the oversight board members (regardless of their title).  It might not be the pastor or other religious leader.  Sometimes state non-profit law can guide the choice and sometimes only the church or denominational governing documents can point to the right defendant.

In Suleman v Zia, Slip Op. (NJ App 2021), the Plaintiffs and Defendants agreed to a stipulated court order that required membership applications be submitted by a date certain and that a general election of board members be held by a date certain.  147 timely submitted membership applications were submitted but no action was taken and no election was scheduled.  The Plaintiffs sought an order of the Court enforcing the stipulated order.  The trial court denied the request for an order of enforcement.  The defendants named in the court proceeding were not members of nor consisted of the Membership Committee charged with the duty to review the applications.  The Membership Committee and its members were not named as parties so no Court order could be enforced as to them.  The defendants were members of an oversight board that had no control over the Membership Committee and apparently could not bind it to any agreement or order.

While it is possible the defendants in the reported case innocently thought they had authority to agree to a stipulated court order, it is equally possible the defendants knew they did not have authority to commit the Membership Committee to anything and for tactical reasons remained silent.  In either case, the Plaintiffs and their counsel should have obtained proof of the defendants’ authority to bind the Membership Committee to the stipulated order.  Defendants should not be selected based on emotions or conspiracy theories.  Church split litigation is usually an underfunded bad idea based on the heat of the moment, in any event, but it will be futile if the proper defendant is not before the court.

LAY MEMBER IMMUNITY – SORT OF

The Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine and the Ministerial Exception limit secular court intrusion into church employment decisions regarding ministers and other employees.  While it is generally the limitations on employment law protection of “other employees” about which the courts struggle, it is possible for these doctrines to limit or preclude other claims.  For example, can a pastor fired by a church or denomination sue, rather than the church or denomination, a member of their church regarding their role in the loss of employment?

In Father Jim Tracy v O’Bell, et al, Slip Op. (Pa. Supp. 2021) an intermediate appellate court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the lay members sued by the former pastor.  The former pastor alleged that alleged tortious interference with his employment contract was the goal of the defamation by the lay member defendants.  The Plaintiff alleged the defendants defamed him with the intent of causing the church to terminate his employment.  Plaintiff claimed he found a large amount of cash in a file cabinet and the lay members claimed the Plaintiff was not financially responsible with church funds.  The church terminated the Plaintiff.  But, the Plaintiff did not sue the church, but rather sued the lay members the Plaintiff claimed defamed him in their alleged plot to secure his termination.  The trial court was affirmed because the alleged defamatory claims of the lay members, and the allegedly connected firing, were intertwined with the ecclesiastical decision to terminate a clergyman.  The termination decision was made by the church and court inquiry into that decision to determine if it was, indeed, based on the defamation would entangle the court in ecclesiastical governance.

While in the reported case the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine, in order to keep the court out of ecclesiastical church governance, had the effect of immunizing lay members the assumption should not be made that it will do so frequently or reliably.  Lay members, even in congregational rather than hierarchical churches, may not be able to defame each other with impunity even if as to the employment of a pastor they might.  Likewise, churches and denominations that do not manage such internal disputes, even if litigation would be ineffectual, may find that there are other consequences and ripple effects, such as to offering plates.