The court determined that the following test should be used in church property disputes under California law:
if resolution of a property dispute involves a point of [religious] doctrine, the court must defer to the position of the highest ecclesiastical authority that has decided the point. But to the extent the court can resolve a property dispute without reference to church doctrine, it should apply neutral principles of law. The court should consider sources such as the deeds to the property in dispute, the local church’s articles of incorporation, the general church’s constitution, canons, and rules, and relevant statutes, including statutes specifically concerning religious property, such as Corporations Code section 9142 [which provides that the governing instruments of a general church may impress a trust on property of a local church].The court also concluded that the suit was not subject to an anti-SLAPP motion to strike under California law. A partial concurrence by Justice Kennard argued that Corporations Code sec. 9142 vests the property with the Episcopal Church because it imposes the principle that civil courts must accept decisions of the highest authority in an hierarchical church. She argues that the statute does not reflect a "neutral principles" approach, because it imposes a special rule on religious organizations that would not apply under general property law. The statute allowed imposition of a trust on church property without the congregation's agreement by a resolution adopted after it owned the property. [Thanks to John B. Chilton for the lead.]
