United States: Religious Institutions: February 2014

Lex Est Sanctio Sancta

Who owns the "church?" For most, this is an odd question. As children, many of us folded our hands and repeated a rhyme: "Here is the church. Here is the steeple. Open the doors and see the people." Nevertheless, for well over a century now courts have been asked to determine who owns the property of a church in various contexts, including theological controversies; disputes about assets; and disagreements with pastors, deacons and members. In the seminal case on church property disputes, Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679, 20 L. Ed. 666 (1871), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the lower court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide whether the pro-slavery or anti-slavery faction of Walnut Street Presbyterian Church in Louisville, Kentucky "owned" the church. Adopting a "hierarchical deference" approach, the court decided that the highest ecclesiastical judicatory of the church should have the final word in the matter.

Gradually, in some jurisdictions involving particular church disputes, courts have adopted another approach known as the "neutral principles of law" approach when convinced that they will not be required to interpret religious doctrine or practice. Under this approach, courts examine realty records (e.g., warranty deed, mortgage, etc.), church and denominational governance documents, actual policy and practice, and donor intent to determine who should prevail, commonly siding with the denomination. Under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, courts typically will not decide cases involving employment disputes with ministers or quasi-ministers, but in some jurisdictions in the event of allegations of fraud, collusion or arbitrary conduct courts may decide other intrachurch controversies relying on "secular" documents.

In the event of serious church or denominational disputes involving property, it is best to consult with church-state counsel at an early stage. For more on this subject and a variety of other risk management subjects, a link to a related webinar follows: https://ajg.adobeconnect.com/_a815130238/p4of03d0uuk/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal

Property Dispute Remanded for Application of Neutral Principles of Law Approach

In Windwood Presbyterian Church, Inc. v. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), No. 01-10-00861-CV, 2014 WL 47750 (Tex. App.-Hous. Jan. 7, 2014), the court ruled that the "neutral principles of law" approach, rather than the "hierarchical deference" approach, applies in resolving church property disputes. The court reversed summary judgment for the denomination and remanded the case for application of the correct approach to the facts.

When the plaintiff was incorporated, it became a member of the Presbyterian Church of the United States (PCUS), which had no trust provision in its constitution. But in 1983, PCUS merged with another group of Presbyterian churches to form the Presbyterian Church (USA) (PSUSA). As part of the reunification, PCUSA amended its church constitution, the Book of Order, to include a trust provision, as well as a provision allowing a local church to opt out within eight years. The property at issue was donated to the church after it joined the PCUSA and more than eight years after the amendments to the Book of Order. The general warranty deeds did not reference a trust in favor of PCUSA. In 2007, the church amended its articles of incorporation to declare that all of its real property constituted a trust held for the benefit and enjoyment only of the members of the local church, then filed suit in 2008 seeking a declaration that the denomination had no legal interest in its property.

The trial court granted PCUSA's motion for summary judgment under the hierarchical deference approach on the theory that Texas courts must defer to the governing church authority for resolution of property issues. Reviewing this decision, the court of appeals ruled that the Supreme Court of Texas had determined that the correct approach is the neutral principles of law approach, which permits state courts to examine legal documents of title, state statutes governing the holding of church property and the secular provisions of church documents, including the terms of the local church charters and provisions of the constitution of the general church concerning the ownership and control of church property. The appellate court disagreed with the denomination that the summary judgment record was broad enough to affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment under the neutral principles of law approach, reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Lawsuit against Pastor for Alleged Wrongdoing Dismissed under Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

In Smith v. White, No. 25622, 2014 WL 201523 (Ohio App. 2 Dist. Jan. 17, 2014), the court ruled that the trial court did not err in dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine a lawsuit alleging that the pastor engaged in wrongdoing. The counts were for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, fraud and a demand for an accounting. Against the plaintiffs' protestations, the trial court concluded that the dispute ultimately requires it to answer questions as to who should preach from the pulpit and whether the committee members' performance of their duties met the standards of the congregation. The court of appeals affirmed. It had trouble affirming dismissal of the demand for an accounting as potentially secular, but considered itself bound by precedent to do so.

Although the court of appeals ruled there is a fraud or collusion exception to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine in "extraordinary circumstances," it held that this case did not involve them. The fraudulent conduct alleged was wrongful concealment of financial misappropriation of the church's funds; in essence, a claim of misconduct on the part of the pastor. The court found that if the members of the church are aggrieved by the pastor's conduct, their governing documents provide a remedy of initiating charges against the pastor and calling a special meeting to consider the pastor's termination. The court ruled that the plaintiffs have a duty to exhaust this remedy before initiating court action. Judge Froelich concurred in part and dissented in part, favoring reversal of the dismissal of the fraud count and the demand for an accounting.

Spot Zoning Decision Indirectly Benefiting Diocese Does Not Violate Establishment Clause

In Foothill Communities Coalition v. Cnty. of Orange, No. G047326, G048024, 2014 WL 107975 (Cal. App. 4 Dist. Jan. 13, 2014), the court ruled that the County Board of Supervisors' decision to create a new zoning definition for senior residential housing in order to allow the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange to construct a senior citizens living community did not violate the Establishment Clause, notwithstanding that it fulfills a faith-based objective of the diocese. The court applied the Lemon test and determined that the enactment of the zoning change and approval of the project: (1) has the secular purpose of providing needed housing alternatives for senior citizens; (2) has the primary effect of creating a senior residential facility, rather than advancing religion; and (3) does not foster entanglement between government and religion. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that: (1) a land use approval constitutes an unlawful preference if the landowner is a religious organization, and (2) the zoning creates a monopoly because the new zoning district has applicability in the entire plan area enabling others to apply.

Court Rules PPACA's Self-Certification Requirement for Religious Organizations Unconstitutional

In Catholic Diocese of Beaumont v. Sebelius, Case No. 1:13-cv-709, 2014 WL 31652 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 2, 2014), the court ruled that requiring the plaintiff to sign a putatively correct statement of religious belief, which the government has defined to authorize a third party to take an action that is contrary to those religious beliefs, imposes a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. The Catholic Church teaches that material cooperation with evil is wrong. Catholic Charities of Southeast Texas, Inc. is a faith-based non-profit. Bishop Guillory has the primary responsibility for determining whether programs administered by Catholic Charities comport with Catholic teachings, and as such is an entity of the Catholic Diocese of Beaumont. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) provides an "accommodation" for "eligible organizations," such as Catholic Charities, which oppose providing coverage for contraceptive services, operate as a nonprofit entity, hold themselves out as religious organizations and self-certify that they satisfy these requirements. ACA regulations provide that "the self-certification will be treated as a designation of the third party administrator(s) as plan administrator and claims administrator for contraceptive benefits...." Put more simply, the self-certification causes the organization's insurer to bear the cost of the contraceptive benefits. The government contends that: (1) any burden of the self-certification requirement is de minimis; (2) the form contains a true statement of the Church's objection to contraceptive services; and (3) the government lacks the power to actually compel the third-party administrator to provide the coverage. The court disagreed, finding that the self-certification affidavit enables the exact harm that plaintiffs seek to avoid, plaintiffs face fines if they do not complete it, and the government is not in fact powerless to require coverage. Besides imposing a substantial burden on religious exercise, the court ruled that PPACA lacks a compelling interest pursued in the least restrictive manner. It observed that the government's position that the administrator could not be required or mandated to provide coverage for contraceptive services "fatally undermines any claim that imposing the mandate on these plaintiffs serves a compelling governmental interest."

Medical Providers Not Liable for Malpractice when Life-Saving Blood Transfusion Refused on Religious Grounds

In Braverman v. Granger, No. 309528, 2014 WL 92243 (Mich.App. Jan. 9, 2014), the court ruled that the estate of the deceased must bear the legal burden when, because of her religious convictions, the deceased refused to accept a blood transfusion that likely would have saved her life, where her doctors, through their assumed breach of the applicable standard of care, allegedly put her in the position to need the blood transfusion with knowledge of her religious convictions. It is contrary to the Jehovah's Witnesses faith to permit blood transfusions, blood products or any derivatives of blood for medical treatment. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendants alleging various breaches of the standard of care, including improper prescription of various blood-thinning medications and daily plasmapheresis, as well as a failure to timely recognize signs of internal bleeding. The defendants requested summary judgment, arguing that the doctrine of avoidable consequences bars the plaintiff's damages for wrongful death. The plaintiff responded that application of the doctrine would violate the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses by incidentally hindering a Jehovah's Witness's exercise of her religion and allowing a jury to consider the reasonableness of the religion.

After reviewing other approaches to the legal question at hand, such as the "reasonable believer" test or "case-by-case" approach, the court rejected them and upheld the trial court's application of a "purely objective approach, which eliminates from consideration all subjective reasons for the plaintiff's decision, to determine whether the blood transfusion was an objectively reasonable means to avoid or minimize damages." The court found no genuine issue of material fact that the blood transfusion was a reasonable procedure under the circumstances to minimize damages following the plaintiff's original injury. Although the court acknowledged an "incidental burden" on religious exercise as a result, it was more concerned about the requirement implicit in the other tests for the trier of fact to judge either the reasonableness of the tenets of the person's religion or the reasonableness of her decision to abide by her religious beliefs in the face of death. Concurring, Judge Boonstra observed that, however tragic was the consequence of the deceased's religiously principled decision, "it does not provide a basis for shifting responsibility for the consequence ... to others."

Township's Investigation and Threatened Enforcement of Noise Ordinance against Church Not a Civil Rights Violation

In Faith Baptist Church v. Waterford Twp., No. 08-11028, 2014 WL 256285 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 23, 2014), the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' in relation to the church lawsuit against the Township and various police officers for violations of the plaintiffs' free exercise, free speech and free association rights. Responding to neighbors' noise complaints, township police entered the plaintiffs' sanctuary three times and took down names of band members, asked them to respond to questions and threatened to enforce the township's noise ordinance. The court dismissed claims against various police supervisors in the absence of allegations that they encouraged or implicitly authorized the actions that the plaintiffs claimed violated their constitutional rights. The court ruled that respondeat superior liability is not enough for section 1983 liability. Likewise, the court ruled that the plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief against the then-prosecutor was moot because the individual was no longer serving in that capacity. Likewise, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for declaratory judgment against the township as a result of the actions of the then-prosecutor and Deputy Chief for lack of any legal authority for the proposition that these individuals were "final decision makers" or had final policymaking authority for the township under Michigan or local law. Last, the court ruled that the noise ordinance that the township sought to enforce was not void for vagueness.

Assessor Not Entitled to Late Fee for Placing Lot on Tax Roll

In New Beginnings Christian Cntr., Inc. v. Multnomah Cnty. Assessor, No. TC-MD 130347D, 2014 WL 108731 (Or. Tax Mag. Div. Jan. 13, 2014), the presiding magistrate granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ordering the defendant to reinstate tax exemption for certain largely unimproved real estate for multiple tax years and to promptly refund with statutory interest all related property taxes and any late filing fee paid. The subject lot was approximately two acres without any buildings, but in one corner a large, lighted sign was erected with an electronic reader board that displays church announcements. The defendantdisqualified the property from exemption after the plaintiff failed to respond to the defendant's inquiries about the subject property's use. The defendant subsequently submitted an application for exemption in response, to which the defendant conceded the exempt purposes of the lot. The defendant offered to reinstate the property's tax exemption and cancel its assessment for the years at issue if the plaintiff paid a late filing fee. The magistrate required return of the fee and found that there was no authority to require religious organizations to provide additional information to assessors to justify continued exemption; thus, it was error to add the property to the tax roll for any of the years at issue.

Plaintiff's Challenge to Cadet's Prayer Dismissed

In Spadone v. McHugh, No. 11-01601, 2014 WL 46456 (D. D.C. Jan. 7, 2014), the court ruled that the plaintiff lacks standing to allege that by requiring him to recite the Cadet's Prayer, a monotheistic prayer, the Commandant of Cadets at the United States Military Academy violated the Establishment Clause. The plaintiff had been disenrolled from West Point. The court was not persuaded that it was enough for standing that the plaintiff was required to serve two years of active duty as an enlisted soldier and could be ordered to pray in the future without evidence of a policy or practice on the part of the defendant requiring it.

Religious Institutions in the News

The Department of Justice appealed a ruling that the ministerial housing allowance is unconstitutional. http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2014/01/25/obama-administration-weak-on-church-state-separation-clergy-housing-allowance-appeal/; http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/19991-feds-appeal-ffrf%E2%80%99s-parish-exemption-win  

Global religious hostilities allegedly reached a six-year high in 2012. http://www.pewforum.org/2014/01/14/religious-hostilities-reach-six-year-high/

The University of Michigan released its study on Muslim attitudes toward religious tolerance and democracy in bellwether Middle Eastern countries. http://home.isr.umich.edu/releases/um-study-tracks-changing-values-in-the-birthplace-of-the-arab-spring/

Researchers contend that living in an area with a large concentration of conservative Protestants increases the chances of divorce. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/study-conservative-protestants-divorce-rates-spread-to-their-red-state-neighbors/2014/01/21/cfbd5534-82ef-11e3-a273-6ffd9cf9f4ba_story.html; http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/impact-of-conservative-protestantism-on-regional-divorce-rates/

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions