Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Requires Dismissal of Pastor's Allegations of Sham Investigation to Oust Him

 In Weems v. Association of Related Churches, (MD FL, Dec. 19, 2024), a Florida federal district court dismissed on ecclesiastical abstention grounds a suit alleging tortious interference and conspiracy brought by Charles Weems, the former senior pastor and co-founder of Celebration Church and by his wife, the other co-founder. Plaintiffs allege that defendants hatched a plan to oust him as senior pastor because his vision for the church would lead to reduced financial contributions to defendant's church planting activities. Weems alleged that, based on manufactured evidence, the church initiated a sham investigation of him to determine if he had engaged in improper financial practices and had failed to fulfill his duties as Senior Pastor. Targeting of Weems eventually led to his resigning. The court said in part:

... [W]hile Plaintiffs frame their claims as tortious interference and conspiracy, these claims cannot be decided without resolving whether Celebration Church investigated Pastor Weems for legitimate religious reasons, or because of the tortious conduct of Defendants.... Such an inquiry would result in the Court entangling itself in matters of “theological controversy, church discipline, [and] ecclesiastical government,” which the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine squarely prohibits....

Local Congregation Cannot Sue Parent in Property Dispute After All Its Members Were Excommunicated

Church of God of Crandon v. Church of God, (WI App., Oct. 15, 2024), involved a dispute between a local congregation-- the Crandon Church-- and its parent body, Church of God (COG). The Crandon Church opposed the parent body's decision that the local church would be merged with a congregation in a different location and the Crandon Church property would be sold. Crandon members filed suit against the parent body seeking a declaration confirming its interest in local church building and its bank accounts. In response, the COG Bishop issued a Declaration excommunicating Crandon Church members and then moved to dismiss the lawsuit against COG on the ground that Crandon no longer had any members so that it effectively has ceased to exist and has no interest in Crandon property. The appellate court agreed, saying in part:

... [T]he 1994 warranty deed states that all property—both real and personal—becomes the property of the COG should a “local congregation” “cease to … exist.”  The Crandon Church cannot file a lawsuit to obtain an interest in property that it does not own.  Because we conclude that the First Amendment prohibits our review of the Declaration, the Crandon Church lacks standing to bring the current lawsuit seeking interests in the property and the CoVantage accounts....

... [A] civil court cannot, under the First Amendment, review:  whether the 2018 Minutes [giving the Bishop the authority to excommunicate unruly or uncooperative members] complied with due process or the Bible; what the COG meant by “unruly or uncooperative”; or whether Cushman properly determined that the excommunicated members were “unruly or uncooperative.”  Similarly, the First Amendment prohibits a civil court from examining the International Executive Committee’s review of those issues.  To hold otherwise “would undermine the general rule that religious controversies are not the proper subject of civil court inquiry.” ... Under the facts of this case, we must defer to the resolution of any ecclesiastical issues by the International Executive Committee, which denied the excommunicated members’ appeal.

6th Circuit: Off-Duty Police Did Not Violate Dismissed Pastor's Free Exercise Rights

In Couzens v. City of Forest Park, Ohio, (6th Cir., Aug. 27, 2024), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by a church's former pastor against off-duty city police officers who assisted the congregation in physically removing a pastor who had been dismissed from his position by the congregation. The court concluded that the off-duty officers acted reasonably in threatening to arrest the pastor if he did not leave the premises. It also concluded that the pastor's free exercise rights had not been infringed, saying in part:

Couzens contends that the Forest Park Defendants interfered with his free exercise of religion when the officers threatened to arrest him during a church service. He relies primarily on Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in N. Am., 344 U.S. 94 (1952)....

Kedroff’s church-autonomy doctrine, though, guarantees the independence of ecclesiastical bodies, not individuals.... And, unlike in Kedroff, the officers’ actions here did not reflect the state’s preference for one contender for a church’s control over another. Instead, the officers attempted to enforce what, from their perspective, appeared to be a settled matter: Couzens’s removal as IBC’s pastor....

Court Dismisses Church's Suit Over Disaffiliation Request

In North United Methodist Church v. New York Annual Conference, (CT Super. Ct., Aug 14, 2024), a Connecticut trial court dismissed a local church's petition for a declaratory judgment. The local church sought a finding that it submitted its request to disaffiliate from the parent church in "sufficient time" to complete disaffiliation under the Book of Discipline. The court concluded that it would require the court to resolve a question of church policy and administration to resolve this issue. However, the court retained jurisdiction over the church's request for a declaratory judgment as to property rights, its quiet tile claim and its quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims.

Alabama Supreme Court Refuses to Order United Methodist Conference to Allow Church Disaffiliations

In Aldersgate United Methodist Church of Montgomery v. Alabama- West Florida Conference of the United Methodist Church, Inc., (AL Sup. Ct., May 31, 2024), the Alabama Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, applied the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine and dismissed a challenge by 44 Methodist congregations to a refusal by their parent Conference to allow the congregations to disaffiliate and retain their property. A few months before the congregations sought to disaffiliate, the Conference had changed its rules to provide that a member church could disaffiliate only after the Conference approved an eligibility statement that set out the reasons of conscience that led to the congregation's request. Prior to that, under a policy that was to expire at the end of 2023, congregations could disaffiliate and retain their property merely if they disagreed with the Chruch's policy on same-sex marriage and homosexuality. In affirming the dismissal of the case, the court said in part:

In order to grant the churches the relief they seek -- the right to vote on disaffiliation -- the trial court would have to survey the Judicial Council's ecclesiastical decisions, interpret the doctrinal scope of ¶ 2553 of the Book of Discipline, and review Conference determinations about the religious adequacy of the churches' eligibility statements.  That is, to decide any property questions, the trial court would have to adjudicate whether each of the churches had adequate "reasons of conscience...."  Resolving those issues would "inherently entail inquiry … into the substantive criteria by which [courts] are supposedly to decide the ecclesiastical question" -- whether the churches' reasons of conscience were sufficient for disaffiliation under ¶ 2553....   "But [that] is exactly the inquiry that the First Amendment prohibits."

Justice Bryan filed an opinion concurring specially which Justice Mitchell joined. Justice Cook filed an opinion concurring specially which Chief Justice Parker joined. Both opinions expressed sympathy with the churches' claim that the last-minute change in rules was engineered to prevent them from disaffiliating. Justice Mundheim filed an opinion concurring in the result, but not in the reasoning of the main opinion. Justice Sellers concurred in the result without filing a separate opinion. Justices Shaw, White and Stewart recused themselves.

Civil Court Must Accept Disciplinary Actions by Hierarchical Church's Parent Body

In San Jose Korean Central Church v. Korean Evangelical Church of America, (CA App., May 29, 2024), a California state appellate court applied the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, holding that a trial court was required to accept as binding internal disciplinary judgments by a church's parent body, Korean Evangelical Church of America (KECA).  At issue was an attempt by a local congregation, San Jose Korean Central Church (SJKCC) to disaffiliate from KECA. As explained by the court:

... [T]he board of SJKCC, led by its senior pastor, Francis Chung, purportedly approved new bylaws and voted to disaffiliate itself from KECA.  One week later, at a special meeting set by the board, the congregation ... approved the new bylaws and voted in favor of SJKCC’s disaffiliation from KECA.  Prior to these actions, however, KECA had issued a disciplinary judgment suspending Chung from performing his duties as an SJKCC board member.  KECA therefore contended that the purported actions taken by the SJKCC board, with Chung acting as its chairman ... were void.  As a result of Chung’s disobedience of the judgment of suspension, ... KECA entered a further disciplinary judgment revoking Chung’s SJKCCs pastorship and excommunicating him from KECA.  Shortly before that date, ... KECA entered a disciplinary judgment against two Chung allies, Ki Soo Kim, Jung Young Lee, removing their status as elders and as members of the SJKCC board....

... [I]t is plain that the May 26, 2019 judgment suspending Francis Chung—being a disciplinary action taken by the national hierarchical church, KECA, through the Judgment Committee of its Northern California District Conference—was an internal ecclesiastical decision that was not subject to review by the civil judicial system.  The rule of judicial deference to ecclesiastical matters applies not only to decisions related to matters of religious doctrine; it “also [applies to] issues of membership, clergy credentials and discipline, and church polity and administration.... The rule of deference to internal decisions of clergy discipline applies irrespective of whether the action taken was “by a procedure contrary to church law and regulations, and for improper, false and fraudulent motives.” ...

Court Supervision of Church Election Invalidated by Mississippi Supreme Court

In Melton v. Union Hill Missionary Baptist Church, (MS Sup. Ct., Jan. 11, 2024), the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed and vacated a decision of a state Chancery Court in a dispute over whether a church had dismissed its pastor.  After an initial vote to oust the pastor, the pastor continued to preach at the church.  The church filed suit and the chancellor ordered the congregation to hold a second vote at a church meeting at which the chancellor would preside. That meeting voted to retain the pastor. Invalidating the chancellor's order to hold a new meeting, the Supreme Court said in part:

The chancellor’s self appointment to oversee a congregational election outside the courthouse and inside a house of worship is far removed from the judicial function and treads heavily upon Mississippi’s Constitution and the Establishment Clause. Thus, the chancellor’s actions, though undoubtedly well intended, amounted to a constitutional violation, resulting in a blending of church and state. This unusual arrangement was the antithesis of the constitutional doctrine that historically has demanded separation of church and state....

Because the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine applies, this Court reverses and vacates the orders of the Madison County Chancery Court.

9 Arrested In New York During Conflict Between Chabad Factions Over Secret Tunnel

In Brooklyn on Monday, nine people were arrested on charges of criminal mischief and reckless endangerment and three others were issued summonses for disorderly conduct after factional chaos broke out at Chabad's headquarters, known as 770.  As described by NBC New York:

A historic Brooklyn synagogue that serves as the center of an influential Hasidic Jewish movement was trashed this week during an unusual community dispute that began with the discovery of a secret underground tunnel and ended in a brawl between worshippers and police.

The conflict erupted in the global headquarters of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement in Crown Heights, a deeply revered Jewish site that each year receives thousands of visitors, including international students and religious leaders....

But on Tuesday, the synagogue remained closed off by police barricades as New York City building safety agents inspected whether a tunnel dug without official permission may have caused structural damage to the famed property.

Officials and locals said young men in the community recently built the passage to the sanctuary in secret. When the group’s leaders tried to seal it off Monday, they staged a protest that turned violent as police moved in to make arrests....

Those who supported the tunnel, meanwhile, said they were carrying out an “expansion” plan long envisioned by the former head of the Chabad movement, Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson...

The Forward has additional background.

NY Court Rules That Parent Body Is Entitled to Possession of Hare Krishna Temple

Kelley v. Gupta, (Sup.Ct. Nassau Cty. NY, Oct. 25, 2023), involves a dispute between two factions of the Hare Krishna movement over control of a temple in Freeport, New York. In this decision a New York state trial court concluded that The Governing Body Commission of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness ("GBC") is the highest ecclesiastical authority in the Krishna movement, and upheld GBC's expulsion of defendant for engaging in religious practices that are contrary to the teachings of the religion. The court said in part:

GBC has established that ISKCON Global is a religion that operates under a hierarchical system, whereby local temples are subject to review and control by the GBC and its ascending order of authority.... The GBC has continued to pass laws and make rulings on various ISKCON Global issues including religious practices and the management of properties. Among these rulings were the Resolutions prohibiting ritvik theory as "a dangerous philosophical deviation," and the expulsion of those who practiced ritvikism, including the defendant and Mr. Garuda. Accordingly, complete deference must be afforded to the GBC's decision making authority in ecclesiastical matters, and any final decisions of the GBC in such matters are therefore binding on this Court....

The court concluded that trustees of ISKCON "are entitled to immediate possession of the Freeport Temple premises and property belonging to the Temple, including but not limited to deities...."

OK Supreme Court: Church Autonomy Doctrine Requires Dispute Over Disaffiliation to Be Dismissed

In Oklahoma Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church v. Timmons, (OK Sup. Ct., Oct. 24, 2023), the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that under the church autonomy doctrine, a state trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to issue the temporary injunction it had entered in a dispute between the United Metodist Church and a local congregation, some of whose members wished to have the congregation disaffiliate from the parent body.  The initial vote by the Church of the Servant congregation fell slightly short of the number needed under United Methodist Book of Discipline to disaffiliate. The District Superintendent refused to exercise the discretion he had under Church rules to call another vote on the matter within a specified time period. The trial court concluded that the District Superintendent was biased against the congregation and ordered the parent body to allow a revote, even though it was beyond the time specified for it in the Book of Discipline.  The Supreme Court said in part: 

In ordering the temporary mandatory injunction in favor of Church of the Servant, Respondent found the church was likely to succeed on the merits and would be irreparably harmed without the injunction.... In so finding, the District Court interpretated the Book of Discipline church doctrine and procedures for UMC and fashioned a remedy contrary to Book of Discipline procedures.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Does Not Apply to Church's Fraud Claims Against Former Pastor

 In New Bethel Baptist Church v. Taylor, (TX App., Aug. 29, 2023), a Texas state appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not prevent civil courts from adjudicating fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and conversion claims against its former pastor who also served as the general contractor on a church construction project.  Plaintiff claims that the pastor withdrew $300,000 from the church's bank account without authorization. The court concluded that the claims can be resolved using neutral principles of law. the court said in part:

... [T]he resolution of these causes of action does not depend on the interpretation of New Bethel’s bylaws and constitutions or other relevant provisions of governing documents. Indeed, this is an example of a civil law controversy in which a church official happens to be involved....

However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the suit because the attorney did not carry her burden of proof that she was authorized to represent the church. The court said in part:

... [R]egardless of how it is named or classified in the underlying suit, it is undisputed that there is only one church. Within this one church, there are two competing factions claiming control, i.e., the board of deacons and directors. With two competing factions claiming control of the church, attorney Robinson, as the challenged attorney, was either authorized to represent both entities, or she was not. In granting Taylor’s rule 12 motion to show authority, the trial court concluded that attorney Robinson failed to discharge her burden of proof to show her authority to act and nothing more.

Church Autonomy Bars Court Adjudicating Dispute Over Withdrawal from Parent Body

 In Deutsche Evangelisch Lutherische Zions Gemeinde v. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, (Kings Cty NY Sup. Ct., Aug. 16, 2023), a New York state trial court dismissed a suit brought by a German Lutheran church in Brooklyn that claims it has broken away from its parent bodies, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and ELCA's Metropolitan New York Synod over the parent bodies' stance accepting same-sex marriage and ordination of gay clergy. The parent bodies claim that the church is still affiliated with them. Plaintiff asks the court to determine that its membership with the parent bodies has been terminated and that the parent bodies lack authority to take control of church property. It also alleges in defamation claims that false statements about its affiliation injure its reputation and dissuade new members from joining. In rejecting those claims, the court said in part:

... [T]he neutral principles of law approach cannot be applied to adjudicate plaintiff's property claims which directly call into question the authority that has been vested in the synod to impose synodical administration which would allow it to dissolve the church and take control over its property....

The MNYS's power to impose synodical administration is far broader, however, than its authority to take control over a local church's property.... Plaintiff's argument ... ignores the inherent religious elements.... [T]he decision to impose synodical administration over a church involves consideration by the Synod of such issues as church governance, religious doctrine and practice, scripture, and the spiritual well-being of the local church's remaining members. Thus, it concerns subject matter with which this court is forbidden from entangling itself pursuant to the First Amendment. Indeed, synodical administration is an inherently religious matter although it incidentally concerns a local church's property.....

In order to resolve the dispute of whether plaintiff terminated its membership with defendants, this court would necessarily intrude into areas of church polity, religious doctrine, practice, and scripture in order to force the Synod to accept the votes taken by plaintiff's congregation in 2008 and 2009 to terminate the relationship. Whether plaintiff remains a member church of the ELCA and the MNYS is more than just a mere associational question but a religious one.

Expelled Church Members' Claims Barred by Statute of Limitations

In Boyett v. First Baptist Church of Bossier, (LA App., Aug. 9,2023), a Louisiana state appellate court in a 2-1 decision affirmed the trial court's holding that Louisiana's statute of limitations (called "prescription" in Louisiana law) barred a suit by members who had been expelled from the church.  Plaintiffs claimed that the Articles under which they were expelled had been improperly adopted.  Judge Hunter dissenting argued that the majority applied the wrong statute of limitations, so that the trial court should reach the merits of the case using the "neutral principles of law" approach.  He contended that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine did not require dismissal of the case, and that the court should reverse the trial court's dismissal and remand the case for the taking of additional evidence.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Bars Court from Deciding Dispute Over Parish Funds

 In Salado v. Roman Catholic Diocese of El Paso, (TX App, Aug. 2, 2023), a Texas state appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine prevents the court from deciding whether funds raised by parishioners to build a new church building had been wrongfully misappropriated by the diocese. Parishioners had raised some $1.4 million, but the bishop decided that a new church should not be built and instead merged the parish with another one and transferred the funds to the new merged parish. The court said in part:

To resolve the dispute of whether the funds raised by the Parishioners on behalf of Sant Jose Parish were misappropriated when they transferred to the new Saint John Paul II Parish would require this Court to interpret Cannon Law and policies of the Roman Catholic Church regarding the rights and authority of bishops regarding the patrimony of a parish. Churches have a fundamental right “to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government[.]”

Suit By Florida Breakaway Methodist Churches Is Dismissed

In Grace United Methodist Church Inc. v. Board of Trustees of FL Annual Conf of UMC Inc., (FL Cir. Ct., April 18, 2023). a Florida state trial court dismissed a suit by 71 Methodist congregations throughout Florida which seek to break away from their parent body because of their objections to United Methodist Church allowing bishops and clergy to officiate at same-sex weddings and to be openly gay. The congregations want to reaffiliate with the more conservative Global Methodist Church. Current UMC rules impose substantial financial costs on congregations seeking to disaffiliate. The court concluded that, under Florida precedent, it must defer to decisions of church hierarchical bodies. It also concluded that actions to determine title to property must be brought in local courts covering the jurisdiction in which the property is located. The court added:

[C]onsidering the recent clarifications from the Supreme Court of the United States on matters of discrimination and unequal treatment based on religious status, along with the abrogation of Lemon v. Kurtzman ... it seems to the Court that merely deferring to the UMC on all matters and denying the Plaintiffs access to the courts to litigate neutral property and trust matters does not meet the strictest scrutiny. Nevertheless, the Court is bound to follow the law as established by the higher courts in the State of Florida.

UM News reports on the decision.

185 Methodist Churches in Georgia Sue Parent Body Seeking Disaffiliation

 At the end of last month, 185 Methodist congregations in Georgia filed suit in a Georgia state trial court against their parent body and its officials.  The congregations are attempting to disaffiliate from the North Georgia Conference of the United Methodist Church pursuant to a provision (❡2553) added to the Church's Book of Discipline in 2019.  The provision, which applies to disaffiliations completed by the end of 2023, allows disaffiliating congregations to keep their real and personal property.  The complaint (full text) in Carrollton First United Methodist Church, Inc. v. Trustees of the North Georgia Conference of the United Methodist Church, Inc., (GA Superior Ct., filed 3/30/2023), alleges in part that: 

Defendants have conspired to "run out the clock" on Plaintiffs ability to utilize ❡2553 by a combination of ultra vires actions, fraudulent misrepresentations, and promises which they have failed to keep so that, unless this court intervenes, Plaintiffs cannot and indeed will not be allowed to fulfill the legislated requirements of ❡2553 in time to meet the sunset date of 12/31/23.

The complaint also alleges that the parent body is no longer allowing disaffiliating churches a credit for their share of a $23 million pension plan reserve fund.

In introductory paragraphs, the complaint contends:

This case can be resolved in accordance with secular Georgia law ... without interfering with the separation of church and state.... Defendants cannot be heard to contest this point, as Defendants have availed themselves of the same principles recently in a substantially similar context in this very court....

UM News, reporting on the lawsuit, says in part:

The lawsuit ... involves more than a quarter of the North Georgia Conference’s nearly 700 congregations. 

It’s also the most congregations that have banded together in a single lawsuit since the denomination began undergoing a slow-motion separation after decades of intensifying debate over LGBTQ inclusion.

Congregants of Buddhist Temple Have Standing to Sue in Factional Dispute

 In Bui v. Loc Hoang Bach, (CA App., Dec. 16, 2022), a California state appellate court, reversing the trial court, held that congregants of a Vietnamese Buddhist Temple have standing to sue two directors who took over control of the Temple after the death of its long-time Abbot. The two directors are attempting to force out the deceased Abbot's nephew who appellants claim was chosen by the deceased Abbot to be the new leader of the Temple. The court held that because the Temple's bylaws did not provide for members, plaintiffs cannot rely on the Nonprofit Religious Corporation Law provision that allows members to sue. The court went on to conclude, however:

There are two other causes of action in the complaint, neither of which is dependent on standing under the code. The second cause of action for accounting requires only that the plaintiff has a relationship with the defendant which requires an accounting.... This relationship need not be fiduciary in nature....  As congregants who have paid dues and invested time and energy in the temple, the Buis – like any other congregant – are arguably entitled to an accounting of the Bachs’ use of temple monies.

As for declaratory and injunctive relief, the Buis seek a judicial determination of the parties’ respective rights and obligations. At minimum, this would require a determination of who is legitimately on the board of directors at present. More specifically, the Buis seek to block the eviction of Cao. Given that Cao has been confirmed as the head abbot at the temple, and was the desired successor to Abbot Thanh, his eviction would almost certainly impact worship at the temple, which consequently impacts the religious freedom of congregants. They have a beneficial interest in these affairs.

North Carolina Methodist Churches Sue to Disaffiliate from Parent Body

Suit was filed last month in a North Carolina state trial court by 38 United Methodist Churches in North Carolina which are seeking to disaffiliate from the United Methodist Church and retain their buildings and property.  The complaint (full text) in Mount Carmel United Methodist Church v. Western North Carolina Conference of the United Methodist Church, (NC Super. Ct., filed 11/10/2022), alleges in part:

Plaintiff Churches wish to disaffiliate from the United Methodist Church ("UMC") to pursue their deeply held religious beliefs. Defendants want to force Plaintiff Churches to stay affiliated with the UMC, and violate those beliefs by holding their church buildings and property hostage. Defendants claim Plaintiffs' Churches property is encumbered by an irrevocable trust for the benefit of the UMC and the only way for Plaintiff Churches to disaffiliate without surrendering the buildings and property that are central to their congregations is by the permission of the UMC and payment of a financial ransom.

Plaintiffs ask the court to declare that the UMC trust is terminated or is revocable and to quiet title to the Churches properties. Religion News Service reports on the lawsuit, saying in part:

Legal action — or the threat of legal action — represents a new strategy on behalf of churches that want to leave the 6.4 million-member United Methodist Church. The denomination is undergoing a wholesale splinter after decades of rancorous debate over the ordination and marriage of LGBTQ members.

The denomination allows churches to leave through the end of 2023. The exit plan allows them to take their properties with them after paying two years of apportionments and pension liabilities.

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Does Not Bar Suit Over Compliance With Non-Profit Corporation Law

 In Auguste v. Hyacinthe, (FL App., Sept. 7, 2022), a Florida state appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not bar the court's deciding whether defendants violated provisions of the Florida Not For Profit Corporation Act.  After the founding pastor of a Baptist church died, the congregation split into two factions.  Plaintiffs allege that after defendant was removed as a director, he continued to purport to act on behalf of the church by filing annual reports with the state, falsely listing members of his faction as officers and falsely removing others. Plaintiffs allege that he also, without proper notice, held a secret meeting with some church members and executed a false resolution claiming that other of the directors were expelled. The court said in part:

Count I alleged that Hyacinthe violated section 617.0808, Florida Statutes (2018), regarding removal of directors. Count II alleged that Tibois violated the same statute. Count III alleged that Appellees violated chapter 617 in holding secret meetings....

Appellants’ counts I-III did not raise claims that would necessarily require the trial court to decide which faction of the Church has control or seek resolution of questions regarding the Church’s governance. Instead, we conclude counts I-III raise issues of the propriety of actions of the board of trustees, board of directors, or corporate officials of a corporation under chapter 617, Florida Statutes....

Conversely, we determine that the trial court did not err in dismissing Appellants’ count IV – raising a cause of action for conversion against Appellees.... Appellants’ count IV would necessarily require the trial court to determine which faction controlled the Church....

Some Of Fired Pastor's Claims Can Move Ahead

In Nation Ford Baptist Church Inc. v. Davis, (NC Sup.Ct., Aug. 19, 2020), the North Carolina Supreme Court allowed a Pastor to move ahead with a portion of his claims challenging his firing, saying in part:

Which set of corporate bylaws were in effect at the relevant time, whether the Church and Board followed the procedures set forth in the bylaws, and whether there was a contract of employment between Pastor Davis and the Church that was breached are factual and legal questions that are appropriately answered by reference to neutral principles of corporate, employment, and contract law....

Nonetheless, other claims raise questions that cannot be answered without considering spiritual matters. These claims must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction....

[I]n all other respects the first claim for relief goes too far, particularly in the remedy sought, because the court can neither declare Pastor Davis the spiritual leader of the Church nor require that he be allowed to conduct services. Addressing this controversy would entangle the court in religious matters such as whether Pastor Davis adequately performed his duties as a pastor as that role is understood in accordance with the Church’s faith and religious traditions.

[Thanks to Will Esser via Religionlaw for the lead.]