In Mosque's Factional Dispute, Ohio Court Orders Dissolution and Reincorporation

In State of Ohio ex. rel. DeWine v. Omar Ibn El Khattab Mosque, Inc., (OH App., June 22, 2017), an Ohio appeals court exercising its original jurisdiction in quo warranto actions granted the state attorney general a writ allowing him to pursue the dissolution of the non-profit corporation which operates a Columbus, Ohio mosque. The court further granted the attorney general authority to oversee the creation of a successor entity to take over the mosque.  Two factions had both claimed to represent the mosque, and were involved in five years of litigation over which of the successive boards is the legitimate governing body of the mosque. The court agreed with a magistrate who initially heard the case, saying:

Omar Mosque, Inc. has violated many statutory requirements of [the Ohio Non-Profit Corporation Law] ... in failing to maintain a record of its members from the period of 2007 through 2011... [and] the failure to conduct an annual or special meeting of voting members for the election of directors in either 2009 or 2010.

These basic statutory requirements that Omar Mosque, Inc. violated would protect a corporation from the confusion and internal paralysis that this case has shown resulted when an internal division arose. Without a defined voting membership, regular meetings, and up-to-date membership roster, the authority of the board, and thus the legitimacy of the corporation itself, is no longer supported through recordable action.

The court added:

In light of the stable management provided by the Reash/Brey respondents, and the Khan/Ball board's willingness to efface itself from the day-to-day operation of the mosque, the oversight of the trustees or a receiver in this case may be limited to resolution of the current corporate dysfunction and need not intrude into the religious affairs of the mosque.

Appeals Court OK's Court-Ordered Meeting of Church Members

In Hawkins v. St. John Missionary Baptist Church of Bakersfield, California, (CA App., March 15, 2017), a California state appellate court upheld a trial court's determination that it could use neutral principles of state non-profit corporation law to order a church's Board of Deacons to call a meeting of members to vote on whether to remove the church's pastor. The appeals court said in part:

[T]he court may apply neutral principles of law based on the church’s own constitution, bylaws and rules, and relevant California statutes.... Thus, a court may determine whether an election in which a pastor was removed was properly conducted according to the church’s bylaws, rules and regulations. In other words, the court may assist the church in acting within its proper sphere under its own rules and regulations to protect civil and property rights.

At the meeting, overseen by a court-appointed referee, those favoring removal of the pastor prevailed by 1 vote. The appeals court concluded that the referee had wrongly excluded the votes of 3 members, and remanded the case for the trial court to redetermine the election results after counting those votes.

Court Orders Further Hearing In Suit By Church Member Challenging His Expulsion

In Campbell v. Shiloh Baptist Church, 2016 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3277 (CT Super. Ct., Dec. 1, 2016), plaintiff Thedress Campbell claims that Shiloh Baptist Church and its pastor removed him from the membership list and barred him from the church without following the church's bylaws.  Campbell had questioned expenditures by the pastor and had reported asbestos in the church to state authorities.  The Connecticut trial court held in part:

Although the Connecticut Supreme Court has articulated a preference for the application of the neutral principles approach in property disputes, it has not had occasion to articulate whether such an approach is to be followed in the resolution of other types of internal church conflicts. This court believes that it would....

... [T]he Constitution and Bylaws of the Church vests the authority for the expulsion or dismissal of members in the membership or congregation of the Church.... [T]he court is not deprived by the first amendment of jurisdiction to resolve whether the plaintiff was in fact expelled from the Church because this decision is not so intertwined with religious principles that it can make this determination without interfering with a legitimate claim to the free exercise of religion. Such an issue may be resolved in the present case by the application of neutral principles of law, here those of the secular laws of corporations. The evidence presented to the court did not address whether the voice of the Church was given expression by vote of its membership.... [T]herefore the court orders that the hearing be continued for the limited purpose of determining whether the Church had actually spoken, or whether the ... letter [informing him of his dismissal] was an ultra vires act of Pastor Porter and Deacon Jones.

Judgment For Return of Pastor's Salary Is Not Dischargeable in Bankruptcy

In In re Andrews, 2016 Bankr. LEXIS 3786 (SD MI Bankr., Oct 20, 2016), a Mississippi federal bankruptcy judge held that amounts the former pastor of a break-away church owed to the parent body of the denomination are not dischargeable in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding.  Robert Andrews was the long-time pastor of Cross Point Church, a church under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Mississippi Conference of the Methodist Protestant Church.  While pastors are paid by local congregations, they are appointed and removed by the parent Conference. Andrews and the Board  of Cross Point Church voted to break away from its parent Conference. The district president of the Conference in response removed Andrews as Cross Point's pastor. The Board of Cross Point nevertheless entered a one-year employment contract with Andrews, including a provision that if the Conference removed Andrews, the pastor would be entitled to his full year's salary.

When the Conference then voted to reject Cross Point's attempted withdrawal, Cross Point's treasurer gave Andrews a check for his remaining yearly salary of $69,505. Andrews and his backers on the Board also locked the church building, took the keys and church records with them and formed a new congregation. In a suit by the remaining members of Cross Point, a state court issued a preliminary injunction requiring Andrews and his backers to return the keys and records. In a subsequent jury trial, the state court awarded Cross Point a judgment of $69,505 against Andrews, finding that Andrews had converted funds belonging to the Church. When Cross Point attempted to garnish Andrew's checking account to recover the funds, Andrews filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection.

Cross Point claimed that the debt owed to it is not dischargeable.  The bankruptcy court agreed.  It first held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine precludes it from revisiting the question of Andrews' removal as pastor of Cross Point. It held that under Sec. 523(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, the debt is not dischargeable because it involved "defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity" and "embezzlement."  The court said in part:

Andrews admitted at Trial that as pastor, officer, and Board member, he owed a fiduciary duty to Cross Point Church to safeguard its funds.

Canadian Appeals Court Allows Review of Church's Expulsion of a Member

In Wall v Judicial Committee of the Highwood Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, (Alberta Ct. App., Sept. 8, 2016), the Court of Appeals of the Canadian province of Alberta held, in a 2-1 decision, that Canadian civil courts have jurisdiction to review a formal decision by a Jehovah's Witness congregation to disfellowship one of its members. The congregation's Judicial Committee took the action against the member, Randy Wall, on the basis of charges of drunkeness.  A church Appeal Committee upheld the decision over Wall's defense that his action resulted from stress over the church's previous disfellowshipping of his 15 year old daughter and the requirement that he shun aspects of his relationship with her.

The majority held that civil courts have jurisdiction to review the decision of a religious organization where the decision impacts property or civil rights, or if a breach of the rules of natural justice is alleged.  Here Wall alleged sufficient procedural irregularities to give jurisdiction to determine if rules of natural justice were breached.  The appeals court majority also held that Wall can submit new evidence to the trial court on whether the impact of shunning by fellow congregants will result in an economic impact on his real estate business.

Judge Wakeling dissenting said in part:

Relying on basic constitutional principles, I have concluded that, presumptively, religious associations – and more importantly, the constituent members – have the constitutional right to select their own members – those with whom they will worship. This decision to exclude a person from the group may be attributable to irreconcilable religious differences or perceived unacceptable forms of behaviour. One should not have to undertake such an intensely personal pursuit with those with whom they do not wish to associate. A religious association must be solely responsible for this class of decisions.

A civil court must decline to review membership decisions of a religious association....

[S]tate intervention in the affairs of religious organizations is not only contrary to the interests of a democratic community, it is also inimical to the welfare of both religious organizations and their congregants.  Whether a religion prospers and attracts new members and has influence in the greater community should be the product of the efforts of adherents of a religion and the values of the religion, not the level of support provided by state apparatus, including the judicial branch of government.

... Courts have neither the mandate nor the expertise to resolve religious doctrinal disputes.

Where one appellate judge dissents on an issue of law, an appeal as of right to Canada's Supreme Court is available. (Background.)  National Post reports on the decision.

Settlement Ends Long-Running Dispute Over Control of Sikh Temple In California

A long-running dispute over control of a Sikh Temple in Yuba City, California, appears to have come to an end after a court-ordered election of new board members resulted in a cooperative transition of leadership.  According to yesterday's Appeal-Democrat, the election (ordered by the court to be held without regard to the Temple by-laws quorum requirements) led to victory by a slate of 73-board members who were opposed to the incumbent directors. The parties then entered a settlement agreement covering all four of the pending cases growing out of the controversy. The agreement was presented to the court yesterday.  Under the settlement, the new directors take office immediately and they will amend the Temple's bylaws to reduce from 8 to 4 years the term of board members. During a board meeting yesterday evening, the new board received the keys and financial records of the Temple.

Judge Orders Church To Hold New Election

In Rock Church, Inc. v Venigalla, (Sup. Ct. NY Cnty, May 3, 2016), a New York state trial court ordered conflicting factions in a small upper East Side nondenominational Christian church to hold a new special meeting of the Church's membership to vote for a Board of Trustees.  The court found that a previous election was invalidly held.  The court concluded that a second ballot after most members thought a membership meeting had ended resulted in a sham election without adequate notice to the membership, in violation of the Church's By-Laws. At issue is a dispute over whether the faction that supports the church's pastor, Daniel Iampaglia, or the faction seeking his dismissal will be elected.  At one point, one of the opponents of Pastor Iampglia filed a police complaint charging him with petit larceny for taking funds from the church offeratory collections.  Iampaglia says the funds were used for church expenses as was the custom. New York Daily News reports on the decision.