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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT