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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT