Suit Over Unification Church Leadership Is Dismissed

In Hyung Jin "Sean" Moon v. Hak Ja Han Moon, (SD NY, Dec. 19, 2019), a New York federal district court applied the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine to dismiss a suit over who is the rightful leader of the Unification Church. The leadership struggle was between the wife and the son of Unification Church founder Rev. Sun Myung Moon. Summarizing its holding, the court said:

[N]otwithstanding plaintiff's efforts to cast this proceeding as a "classic corporate dispute" resolvable by reference to neutral principles of law,... this matter is, at bottom, the latest chapter in a protracted controversy over who should replace the late Rev. Moon as leader of the Unification Church. Because this Court may not, consistent with the First Amendment, intervene in that dispute, plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed in its entirety for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Appeals Court Dismisses Suit To Enforce Board's Suspension of Church Pastor

In Stewart v. McCray, (IN App., Dec. 11, 2019), an Indiana state appellate court dismissed a suit seeking to enforce a suspension imposed by the Board of Directors of a Baptist church on its pastor. The trial court had found the pastor in contempt a the court's order enforcing the suspension.  As the court of appeals explained:

This matter stems from a years-long dispute between certain members of the congregation of the Canaan Baptist Church, in Elkhart, Indiana ... and its pastor, Reverend McNeal Stewart, III ... involving allegations that Rev. Stewart usurped the authority of the Church’s board of directors and disregarded the constitution and bylaws of the Church.....

The instant matter arises from Rev. Stewart’s suspension from his pastoral duties for his alleged failure to act in accordance with the Church’s Bylaws. Regardless of whether the parties, at times, failed to adhere to the Church’s Bylaws, at bottom, this is a dispute over the Church’s leadership. As such, this matter, at its core, is purely ecclesiastical and one which the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate.

Some Factional Church Claims Subject To Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In El Pescador Church, Inc. v. Ferrero, (TX App., Nov. 25, 2019), a Texas state appeals court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine requires dismissal of a claim by one church faction that defendants wrongfully exercised control over property of the non-denominational church by changing banks, changing locks, taking control of the tithe and "subjecting any and all parities [sic] that disagree with these actions to intimidation, ridicule, and humiliation directed from the pulpit to the faithful." The court said in part:

[T]he evidence that the Church used to respond to the motion for summary judgment shows how its case is inextricably intertwined with ecclesiastical issues. That evidence consists [in part of] ... meeting minutes [which] state that "the congregation requested to place in discipline the Treasurer--Armando Oaxaca and for him to be destitute of the position of Treasurer." The minutes conclude that "Oaxaca can't function as Treasurer since he is not attending services or tithing to the congregation." Discipline of church members, particularly based on a scriptural concept such as tithing, are uniquely ecclesiastical....

The other claims--fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, equally implicate facts that are inextricably intertwined with internal church governance, the role of the pastor in church affairs, membership in the congregation, and statements of the pastor from the pulpit....

 Certain other claims however are not subject to dismissal:

The Church also sued Nunez for advice that he gave to Hector Ferrero and the congregation. He is alleged to have provided accounting and legal advice while not being licensed in those occupations. There is no allegation or evidence that his advice was ecclesiastical in nature, but rather the pleading alleges it is related to corporate governance under the corporation's articles of incorporation and Texas law. We view those claims differently from the allegations against the church officers and congregants.....

Supreme Court Denies Review Of Discovery Directed To Church

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in Presbyterian Church v. Edwards, (Docket No. 18-1441, cert. denied 10/7/2019). In the case the Kentucky Supreme Court allowed discovery to proceed in a defamation suit against the Presbyterian Church to the extent necessary to determine if the church is entitled to ecclesiastical immunity. (See prior posting.) The Supreme Court in June denied a stay in the case.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Prevents Decision On Church Demolition

In Friends to Restore St. Mary's, LLC v. Church of St. Mary, Melrose, (MN App., Sept. 3, 2019), a Minnesota state appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine precludes a civil court from adjudicating a dispute over whether an arson-damaged church building is a “historical resource” protected under Minnesota Environmental Rights Act.  Plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent demolition of the church building after the Bishop and the Diocesan Building Council recommended demolition and building of a new structure. The court concluded:

On the record before us, the decision to remove features of religious significance and demolish the church building is an internal decision that affects the faith and mission of the church. Appellant’s MERA claim cannot be adjudicated without violating the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Requires Dismissal of Pastor's Contract Claim

In In re First Christian Methodist Evangelistic Church, (TX App., Aug. 30, 2019), a Texas state appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, as a matter of constitutional law, prevented civil courts from adjudicating a pastor's claim that he was entitled to 6 months severance pay under his employment contract. The court said in part:

[T]o determine if the Church was required to pay the Senior Pastor severance under the contract, the trial court will be required to determine why the Senior Pastor was terminated and, if the termination was for misconduct, the court will be required to determine if the Senior Pastor was properly terminated for misconduct as defined by the Church’s Book of Discipline and ecclesiastical rules.... The ecclesiastical nature of the dispute cannot be severed from the contractual issues asserted by the Senior Pastor. 

Factional Dispute In Church Dismissed

In In re Torres, (TX App., July 30, 2019), a Texas appellate court ordered dismissal of a suit between two factions of a church known as Templo Bautista.  According to the court:

Ramirez and Herrera complain about the removal of a pastor, his replacement by another, the manner in which that was done, whether it complied with the church procedures, the removal of parishioners as church members, and the way Torres and those aligned with him came to govern their church.

The court held that these "are controversies insulated from judicial interference under the neutral principles methodology. Thus, the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to address or regulate them."

Factional Dispute In Ethiopian Orthodox Church Dismissed

In Ambellu v.  Re’ese Adbarat Debre Selam Kidist Mariam, (D DC, June 21, 2019), the D.C. federal district court dismissed a suit brought by former members of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church alleging that a group of current members and priests conspired to take control of the Church through means that violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The court held that the 1st Amendment precludes it from hearing the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, saying:

Whether someone may worship at a church is plainly a matter of ecclesiastical cognizance.

The court also dismissed complaints about the way dues money is spent, saying in part:

How a church spends worshippers’ contributions is, like the question of who may worship there, central to the exercise of religion. And placing its assets in trust for the Parishioners at the expense of the Current Leaders would constitute an impermissible judicial interference with the Church’s ability to make governance and spending decisions. Indeed, evaluating the Parishioners’ claims would require the Court to decide who is rightfully empowered to make financial decisions for the Church. The Free Exercise Clause requires that the Court to decline to do so.

The court held that while the 1st Amendment does not deprive it of jurisdiction over claims of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, it held that plaintiffs had not adequately pleaded these claims.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Applies To Controversy Over Rental of Catholic Community Center

In Sacred Heart Knanaya Catholic Community Center Building Board v. St. Thomas Syromalabar Diocese of Chicago, 2019 IL App (2d) 180792-U (IL App., May 30, 2019), an Illinois appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine applies to a suit against a Catholic diocese by a Catholic community center board for tortious interference with a business relationship. The diocese barred use of the community center by another Catholic church that had contracted to rent the Center for a Spanish Latin Rite Mass.

Supreme Court Denies Stay Sought By Presbyterian Church In Defamation Suit

Today the U.S. Supreme Court in Presbyterian Church v. Edwards, (Docket No. 18A1126, June 3, 2019) (Order List) denied an application to stay enforcement while a petition for certiorari is filed of an order by the Kentucky Supreme Court (see prior posting).  The Kentucky Supreme Court allowed discovery to proceed in a defamation suit against the Presbyterian Church to the extent necessary to determine if the church is entitled to ecclesiastical immunity. The Church claims that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine precludes this.

Episcopal Parish's Suit Against Its Rector Is Dismissed

In Parish of St. Paul's Episcopal Church v. Kovoor, 2019 Conn. Super. LEXIS 714 (CT Super. Ct., April 10, 2019), a Connecticut state trial court dismissed a lawsuit brought by a Darien, Connecticut parish which was seeking to remove its Rector, Rev. George Kovoor, on the ground that he made material misrepresentations of his credentials when he applied for employment.  Prior to the filing of the lawsuit, the parent church had stepped in and attempted to resolve the dispute between the parish and Kavoor, ordering that each party take certain steps. When the parish failed to take the steps called for, the parent church dissolved the parish and converted it into a Worshiping Community under direct supervision of the Bishop. The court held that it must defer to the decisions of the parent Episcopal Church:

Neutral principals of law can be applied to church disputes. Herein the plaintiffs claim common-law employment contract law is such a neutral principle of law that should be applied. Applying those provisions would relitigate the three decisions already issued by the Episcopal Church as to the St. Paul's/Kovoor Rector situation. In this court's opinion that would cause the Superior Court to examine the internal workings and polity of the Episcopal Church in Connecticut....

The court finds the March 2016 employment relationship... is religious in nature. The court finds that adjudicating the particular claims and defenses in this case will require the court to intervene into a religious institution's exclusive right to decide matters pertaining to doctrine and/or its internal governance or organization.... 

This court finds that the nature of a relief being sought in this case would entangle the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut into matters of religious hiring, religious practices and church polity. The court notes that there is no claim in this litigation concerning the title to the real property currently occupied by the Worshipping Community and formerly by St. Paul's Parish of Darien, Connecticut.

Reporting on the decision Virture Online says that St. Paul's is now operating as a state-chartered ecclesiastical society, unconnected to the Episcopal Church.

Defamation Suit Dismissed Under Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In In re Alief Vietnamese Alliance Church and Phan Phung Hung, (TX App., April 30, 2019), a Texas state appellate court held that a defamation claim by a church's former interim pastor, Paul Nguyen, against the Church and its senior pastor Phan Phung Hung should be dismissed under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.  At issue were statements by Hung that Nguyen had committed adultery with a female church member. In a 2-1 decision, the majority said in part:

We conclude that Hung's allegedly defamatory statements are ... "inextricably intertwined" with matters relating to an internal struggle between a current and former leader of the Church over Church governance, the standard of morals required of leaders of the Church, and the reason for Nguyen's leaving or being expelled from the Church....

Even if there is a dispute over Hung's motivation in making the statements—either as part of a disciplinary procedure due to the alleged adultery or merely out of vindictiveness towards Nguyen, who had criticized Hung's pastoring decisions—these statements were made in the context of expelling a member and former leader of the Church, or, alternatively, the Church member's voluntarily quitting his leadership positions and quitting the Church—and then refusing to meet with Church leadership to resolve the dispute—either version of which is inherently an ecclesiastical concern as a matter of law.

Judge Landau filed a dissenting opinion.

Defamation Suit Dismissed On Ecclesiastical Abstention Grounds

In McRaney v. North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, (ND MS, April 22, 2019), a Mississippi federal district court dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention grounds a defamation suit by a the former executive director of the Baptist Convention of Maryland and Delaware (BCMD).  Plaintiff contended that the North American Mission Board defamed him to BCMD and tortiously interfered with his employment contract.  The court said that resolution of plaintiff's claims would require it to determine whether the Mission Board had a valid religious reason for its actions-- and "That the court cannot do."  Baptist Press reports on the decision.

Certiorari Denied In Priest's Libel Suit Against Diocese

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Gallagher v. Diocese of Palm Beach, Inc., (Docket No. 18-964, certiorari denied, 4/22/2019) (Order List).  In the case,  a Florida state appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine requires dismissal of a defamation suit brought by a Catholic priest against the diocese in which he served. (See prior posting.) The Florida Supreme Court had denied review in the case.  South Florida Sun Sentinel reports on yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court's denial of certiorari.

Break-Away Moves By Methodist Congregation Are Invalid

In Laumalie Ma'oni'oni Free Wesleyan Church of Tonga v. Ma'afu, (UT App, March 21, 2019), a Utah state appellate court held that a mail-in vote to change the articles of incorporation of the Tongan United Methodist Church (TUMC) was invalid.  The amendments purported to break the congregation away from the parent United Methodist Church (UMC). The mail vote did not comply with the governance requirement of UMC's Book of Discipline which was incorporated by reference into TUMC's articles of incorporation.  Rejecting constitutional challenges, the court said in part:

[T]he district court’s interpretation and application of the Discipline was constitutionally sound. In resolving the dispute, the court looked to the corporation’s governing documents, “without inquiring into matters of church doctrine.” The Discipline requires any meeting of the Charge Conference or the Church Conference to be presided over and called by the district superintendent. The Discipline does not authorize mail-in voting....

Free Wesleyan argues that these matters relate to “faith and doctrine.” We disagree. Whether a corporate meeting must be called and presided over by a certain person and whether voting members must be present at a meeting are not matters of religious doctrine or faith.

Court Dismisses Suit Challenging Church's Internal Investigation

In Williams v. Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses, (UT App, March 21, 2019), a Utah state appellate court upheld the dismissal of an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim brought by a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses against church bodies and individuals.  At issue was the manner in which a judicial committee of the Church conducted an investigation into plaintiff Ria Williams sexual conduct.  The court said in part:

In the summer of 2007, Williams met another Jehovah’s Witnesses congregant (“Church Member”). Williams and Church Member began seeing each other socially, but the relationship quickly changed and throughout the rest of the year Church Member physically and sexually assaulted Williams, who was a minor....

After questioning Williams about her sexual conduct, the Elders played an audio recording of Church Member raping Williams. Church Member recorded this incident and gave it to the Elders during their investigation of Williams. The recording was “several hours” in length. Williams cried and protested as the Elders replayed the recording. The Elders played the recording for “four to five hours” stopping and starting it to ask Williams whether she consented to the sexual acts. During the meeting Williams was “crying and physically quivering.” Williams conceded she was able to leave but risked being disfellowshipped if she did....

Allowing Williams’s claims in this case to be litigated would require the district court to unconstitutionally inject itself into substantive ecclesiastical matters. Williams argues she is not challenging the Church’s ability to determine what constitutes “sinful behavior”.... But Williams asks the factfinder to assess the manner in which the Church conducted a religious judicial committee, which requires it to assess religiously prescribed conduct....

We conclude Williams’s claim for IIED requires an inquiry into the appropriateness of the Church’s conduct in applying a religious practice and therefore violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Governs Property Dispute In Hierarchical Church

In Holy Trinity Romanian Orthodox Monastery v. Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of America, (MI App., March 19, 2019), a Michigan state appellate court held that the trial court should have applied the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine to a church property dispute instead of the "neutral principles of law" approach.  Bishop Ioan Duvlea served as the abbot of the Holy Ascension Romanian Orthodox Christian Monastery until he was demoted and defrocked after a church trial.  A faction supporting him conveyed property belonging to the monastery to Holy Trinity, a new entity they formed.  The court, ruling in favor of the parent church body said in part:

This case requires determination whether Holy Trinity, a monastic corporate entity formed by a schismatic faction that left the ROEA, could claim ownership of the property that the faction conveyed from Holy Ascension before dissolving it. The ROEA contends that Holy Ascension owned but held in trust for the ROEA, a hierarchical church, the disputed property pursuant to church documents governing the ecclesiastical structure, polity, rules, discipline, and usage of the church with which Holy Ascension affiliated itself and to which it submitted....

In this case, the trial court failed to consider whether the ROEA constituted a hierarchical religious organization and did not examine the nature of the relationship of Holy Ascension with the ROEA and the Orthodox Church in America. The trial court failed to consider whether the actual adjudication of the legal claims in this case required the resolution of ecclesiastical questions, including the relationships between entities within the allegedly hierarchical religious denomination. Instead, the trial court stated without explanation that it found the dispute in this case merely secular requiring it to apply the neutral-principles-of-law approach. In so doing, the trial court erred.

The record reflects that the trial court substituted its interpretation of canonical texts and ignored the decisions of the ROEA relating to government of the religious polity. The trial court disregarded the evidence presented by the ROEA that required it to abstain and defer to the ROEA’s resolution of the property dispute. 

False Light Invasion of Privacy Suit By Pastor Is Dismissed

In Byrd v. DeVeaux, (D MD, March 4, 2019), a Maryland federal district court dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention and ministerial exception grounds a false light invasion of privacy suit brought by Alicia Byrd, a pastor at an African Methodist Episcopal Church. Byrd sought over $14 million in damages for a report issued by the parent AME Church's Ministerial Efficiency Committee saying that she collateralized church property to build a non-profit facility without proper approval and for a letter alleging that she co-mingled church funds.  The court said in part:

Some of the independent  statements Plaintiff relies on are obviously fused with concepts of church law, polity, or doctrine, while others appear secular.... As a whole, the reports and letter constitute a matter of internal church discipline, and the statements contained within the documents are incapable of extrapolation from the overall ecclesiastical nature of the documents. Thus, Plaintiff's false light claim is barred by the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine....

Here, Plaintiff's claim is rooted in the MEC's disciplinary review of Plaintiff and decision that Plaintiff should be placed on administrative leave.... [T]he ministerial exception would apply to Plaintiff's false light claim and would provide an additional reason to grant summary judgment to Defendants.

Baptist College's Attempt To Exit Baptist Convention Control Involves Ecclesiastical Determinations

In Executive Board of the Missouri Baptist Convention v. Missouri Baptist University, (MO App., Feb. 19, 2019), a Missouri state appellate court rejected attempts by Missouri Baptist University and The Baptist Home to amend their Articles of Incorporation to eliminate the Missouri Baptist Convention's right to select members of their boards of trustees and its right to veto amendments to their Articles.  The attempts to extricate themselves from Convention control followed an ideological battle within the Convention that moved it to the right.  In part the court held that certain affirmative defenses raised by the University concern ecclesiastical matters which civil courts cannot decide, saying:

[T]he University alleges that the Convention demanded that it ... refrain from teaching material that contradicted certain ideas which are clearly religious doctrine, such as the belief that the Earth was created in seven days roughly 6,000 years ago, or the belief that every living thing on Earth is descended from animals rescued from a flood on a vessel roughly 4,300 years ago.... The University claims that these demands ... “anticipatorily breached” provisions of a document entitled “A Christian Higher Education: A Statement of Purpose” which states ... that “... Christian education proceeds without fear into whatever knowledge may come.” ... Considering this defense as it currently is presented requires a court to rule – at least implicitly - on the truth of the story of Noah’s ark or Christian beliefs in creationism. We cannot conceive of a judicial inquiry which would impose on ecclesiastical matters more than this, nor can we find fault in the circuit court’s unwillingness to even attempt to find neutral grounds upon which it could rule when the color and content of the University’s allegations are so nakedly religious.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Does Not Require Dismissal of Negligent Supervision Claim

In Bourque v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, NC, (NC App., Nov. 20, 2018), a North Carolina appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not require dismissal of a suit alleging negligent supervision and negligent infliction of emotional distress. However it does require dismissal of a negligent hiring claim. The suit alleges that a male church youth leader raped a 14-year old female who sought counsel from him about being bullied. Four years later, he repeatedly raped her again. The court said in part:

Plaintiffs’ claim is not barred by the First Amendment because determining whether Bishop Jugis and the Diocese knew or had reason to know of Defendant’s proclivities for sexual wrongdoing requires only the application of neutral principles of tort law, and “the application of a secular standard to secular conduct that is tortious is not prohibited by the Constitution.”