ILNews

Justices accept church-property dispute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has agreed to take a case between a Vanderburgh County church and its former national organization dealing with what happens to the local church property after the local church defected to another Presbyterian organization.

The justices granted one transfer for the week of May 27, Presbytery of Ohio Valley Inc., et al. v. OPC Inc., et al., No. 82S02-1105-MF-314. When Olivet Presbyterian Church decided to leave the Presbyterian Church (USA) in 2006 to join Evangelical Presbyterian Church of America, it wanted to keep property it had purchased in 1968. The trial court ruled in favor of Olivet, but the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed.

The appellate court  concluded that because the local congregation was part of the national church organization and accepted the benefits of being a national organization, the local congregation acknowledged in its bylaws that it was bound by the national church constitution and could not amend its bylaws to conflict with that document. The court said the church constitution contains a clause providing that all property titled to local congregations is held in trust for the use and benefit of the national church organization, and that judgment must be entered in favor of the governing judicatory bodies of the national church.

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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT