When a church split spills into the street it is always interesting to see which issue the contestants chose to take into the courthouse.  Typically, the contestants will pick issues that are emotionally charged but which they lack fundamental evidence to substantiate.  Membership roll qualification and verification is usually the most needed but the least well documented in a church split.  The old guard seems to feel the need to prove their voting eligibility the least as if some sort of presumption will carry their claims.  The challengers to the old order usually have the better documentation of membership either because their memberships are the more recent or they planned it that way.

In Queens Branch of the Bhuvaneshwar Mandir, Inc. v Jagraine Sherman, 2017 NY Slip Op 08546 (NY App Div 2^nd 2017) the opinion does not indicate which group was the old guard and which was the challenger.  However, the battle for control of the church was settled by an election and the court was asked to confirm the outcome of the election.  The disgruntled party alleged a substantial number of the ballots were cast by persons not qualified to vote or not qualified to be members.  Without discussing specifics, the court concluded there was inadequate proof to support the claim.

Non-existent or poorly documented membership rolls may make a church election impossible to challenge.  The church organizational documents should specify membership eligibility requirements.  The church organizational documents should specify the electoral process.  There should be church organizational documents in the first place, e.g., bylaws.  When a dispute arises it is not uncommon to ask a church to provide the organizational documents only to be told the church cannot determine which version is the latest or whether it is complete, if it can be located at all.

While a congregational church that does not have bylaws that can identify members, identify officers, identify employees, especially pastors, and provide for succession will regret it if disputes arise, equally problematic is the church that has overly complex bylaws that require many steps to accomplish such normal operational requirements.  Overly complex bylaws contain too many procedural steps or empower multiple boards with conflicting or overlapping spheres of authority.  Overly complex bylaws provide for complex verification procedures or worse, subjective verification of office holding credentials.  Overly complex bylaws create too many opportunities for the volunteers on the board to miss a step altogether or even if it was fulfilled fail to document it so that after the passage of time it cannot be determined it was fulfilled.

In Oriental Mission Church v Park, 2017 WL 3262257 (Cal. App. 2017), factional disputes led to a decade of litigation including several prior trial court judgments and one prior appeal.  The church had a set of bylaws which were translated into English and stipulated into evidence.  The bylaws required election to leadership by a 2/3^rds congregational vote.  The leadership was limited to nine years of service or three successive terms.  The leadership had a mandatory retirement age of 65.  If someone in leadership resigned voluntarily, the leader could be reinstated in leadership by petitioning for reinstatement, submitting letters of recommendation from 1/3 of the serving members of the board, followed by a vote of the board at which 2/3rds must vote for reinstatement.  The board members resigned en masse, with a couple of exceptions, in 2006 and this opinion ruled upon reinstatement.  The trial court held that the resignations were valid and reinstatement had not been proven to have occurred.

The trial court also found that one board member did not mean his signed resignation to be an actual resignation.  The trial court on that basis held that board member had not resigned.  The appellate court affirmed all of the trial court rulings except this one, finding the testimony of the board member about his intent was inexplicable in light of the signed resignation.  A written resignation was held to remain enforceable over self-serving contrary testimony.

Whether a church is governed by a hierarchy or governed by the congregation determines who has the right to control church property.  Typically, hierarchical churches are denominational.  Independent churches are typically congregational.  In the hierarchical church, the hierarchy controls the property.  In a congregational church, the congregation controls the property.  Some churches may have aspects of both categories.

In Tom Slagle v Church of the First Born, Slip Op. (Tenn. App., August 2017) (Slagle II), the appellate court sent the case back to the trial court for a trial on the issue of whether the church was hierarchical or congregational respecting its property and regardless of how it might be classified on any other issue.  Based on the record, the appellate court could not determine as to property ownership and control whether the Deacons controlled the property or whether congregational voting governed the property.  In our post of June 20, 2017, we analyzed Slagle I, a prior decision in the case which is the subject of this post.

In Slagle II, the Court listed “a six factor test” for determining whether a church is hierarchical.  The factors listed were:  (1) the affiliation of the local church with a parent church, (2) an ascending order of ecclesiastical judicatories in which the government of the local church is subject to review and control by higher authorities, (3) subjugation of the local church to the jurisdiction of a parent church or to a constitution and canons promulgated by the parent church, (4) a charter from the parent church governing the affairs of the local church and specifying ownership of local church property, (5) the repository of legal title, and (6) the licensing or ordination of local ministers by the parent church.

After the church split occurred (or while it was developing), there was a vote to adopt bylaws.  Had this been done earlier in the history of the church, the question of control of property might not have required litigation, and if it did, shorter and cheaper litigation.  Slagle I and Slagle II, did not finally resolve the case because it was remanded for trial, as noted above.  The litigation nightmare of this church, and its cost in money, time and distraction from mission, was made inevitable by the failure of a founder to have a succession plan and the failure of the church to incorporate or adopt bylaws during a time of peace.