ILNews

COA rules in favor of national organization in dispute over church property

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals was faced with an issue between a Vanderburgh County church and its former national organization involving what happens to the local church property once the local church defected to another Presbyterian organization.

Olivet Presbyterian Church joined Presbyterian Church (USA) when the two former branches of the Presbyterian Church reunited in 1983. By joining the PC(USA), it was subject to the national organization’s constitution, which provides that all property held by individual congregations is held in a trust for PC(USA). Olivet had amended its bylaws twice after joining PC(USA) acknowledging it was bound by the constitution.

But when it decided in 2006 to leave PC(USA) and join Evangelical Presbyterian Church of America, it wanted to keep the property on Oak Hill Road it had purchased in 1968. That’s when the national organization and other groups sued Olivet seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no right, title or interest in the Oak Hill property and a constructive trust on that property in favor of the Presbytery, which is the regional level of governance and the primary governing body within PC(USA).

The trial court applied the neutral principles approach to rule on the matter and cited the deed, which belongs to Olivet, when it ruled in favor of Olivet.

The Court of Appeals agreed in Presbytery of Ohio Valley, Inc., et al. v. OPC, Inc., et al., No. 82A02-1003-MF-339, that the neutral principles of law approach was the correct one for this situation, but reversed summary judgment in favor of Olivet. The method requires a court to examine certain religious documents, including a constitution, for language of trust in favor of the general church, according to Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (1979).

The trial court focused nearly solely on the language of the deed on the Oak Hill Property, but the judges also looked to the language of the Property Trust Clause. That clause is plain and unambiguous, and says all property held by entities of PC(USA) is held in trust for the use and benefit of PC(USA), wrote Chief Judge John Baker.

Olivet argued that when it bought the property in 1968, PC(USA), its constitution, and the Property Trust Clause didn’t exist. But Olivet was included in PC(USA) when the two former branches of the Presbyterian Church reunited in 1983, and the local church amended its bylaws twice acknowledging it was bound by PC(USA).

Olivet also claimed that when it reincorporated to become part of EPC, it removed itself from the governance of the PC(USA) constitution and was no longer bound by it. The judges found the instant case to be similar to National Board of Examiners of Osteopathic Physicians & Surgeons v. American Osteopathic Association, 645 N.E.2d 608 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994).

“Olivet argues that NBOME is not analogous to the instant appeal because it involved secular, rather than ecclesiastical, entities. But what we are asked to do herein is resolve a property dispute,” wrote the chief judge. “We have applied the neutral principles of law approach—as advocated for by Olivet—and have, consequently, applied principles of contract, corporate, and property law in interpreting Olivet’s bylaws and the property provisions of the PC(USA) Constitution. Just because a party states that a document or a specific provision of a document is ecclesiastical does not automatically make it so, and here, no ecclesiastical inquiry is necessary to resolve the dispute.”

Olivet followed the procedures of the national organization to break with it until the local church learned it might not be able to keep the Oak Hill property. That’s when Olivet refused to abide by the Presbytery’s decision and forced PC(USA) to turn to the judicial system to resolve the dispute, wrote the chief judge.

The appellate court remanded for judgment to be entered in favor of the appellants together with a declaratory judgment that Olivet has no right, title, or interest in the Oak Hill property, and a constructive trust on that property in favor of the Presbytery.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT