Presbytery tries to move case again; church seeks summary judgment
By Patrick Jean, April 17, 2007
St. Andrew Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church (USA) again is trying to have a member church’s property ownership lawsuit against it moved out of civil court.
First Presbyterian Church in Corinth, Miss., wants the case left in civil court and is seeking a summary judgment against the presbytery.
Each side wants a preliminary injunction issued against the other.
Judge Thomas J. Gardner III will have these and other motions to consider April 23, when the lawsuit is heard in Alcorn County Circuit Court.
A flurry of filings has followed First Presbyterian’s initiation of the lawsuit Feb. 5 and the presbytery’s removal of the case to U.S. District Court on Feb. 13, before it was remanded to circuit court a week later. Eleven documents, totaling hundreds of pages, were obtained by The Layman Online.
Here is a breakdown of what has been filed since the case returned to circuit court Feb. 20:
Answer, Defenses and Counterclaim
J. Hale Freeland, an Oxford attorney who represents the presbytery, filed an “Answer, Defenses and Counterclaim” to the church’s lawsuit March 1. The response seeks “declaratory and injunctive relief” to:
- 1. Find “the PCUSA is a hierarchical, connectional church and that FPC Corinth is subject to the PCUSA Constitution.”
- 2. State that “the PCUSA Constitution has applicable provisions to this property dispute and deference must be given to the PCUSA’s governance and dispute resolution procedures.”
- 3. Declare either (a) “the case must be dismissed or indefinitely held in abeyance pending review and decision on the dispute through the appropriate PCUSA governance procedures,” or (b) “the subject property is held in trust for the use and benefit of the presbytery pursuant to applicable federal and state case law precedent.”
- 4. Hold that “FPC Corinth does not have the power or authority to take, hold or convey the real and personal property identified in the complaint without approval from the presbytery, and that no such approval action has occurred.”
- 5. “Enjoin FPC Corinth from further encumbering, selling, divesting or otherwise transferring any property, real or personal, until such time as the presbytery makes a determination of the issues.”
J. Scott Newton, one of the attorneys on the Jackson legal team representing the church, filed a response to the counterclaim April 6. The response seeks a dismissal of the counterclaim on the grounds that:
- Clauses in the PCUSA Constitution that purport to apply to the property dispute are not legally enforceable. “Corinth is only bound by the provisions of the PCUSA Constitution to the extent, and for as long as, it agrees to be bound by them,” the response states. “Corinth never executed any document or otherwise agreed to be legally bound” by the constitution.
- The court should not “consider this property dispute a matter of church polity. … The deeds to Corinth’s property do not, in any way, acknowledge that the property is held in trust for the presbytery or the PCUSA.”
- The court should not “give any deference to the PCUSA Constitution.” The constitution does not “confer upon the presbytery and/or the PCUSA a legal interest in Corinth’s property.”
Motion to transfer case
On March 13, Freeland filed a motion to have the case moved from circuit court to Alcorn County Chancery Court.
The presbytery is seeking the transfer, Freeland said, because of the nature of the lawsuit. Chancery courts handle matters involving trusts and real property, he said, while circuit court hears contractual, civil and criminal cases.
Mississippi’s Constitution grants chancery courts “jurisdiction over title disputes” and “full jurisdiction over all matters in equity,” the motion states. “All matters in equity have been specifically held to include trust matters and injunctive relief.”
The motion also argues that “all of the landmark church property disputes in this state have been tried in the state’s chancery courts.”
Freeland also filed a memo supporting the motion. “Both parties are asking the court to determine the same thing,” the memo states:
- “Who holds the rights/title to the property upon which FPC Corinth sits.”
- “Whether a trust provision from the PCUSA Constitution is applicable and enforceable.”
- “To afford injunctive and declaratory relief as remedies to these questions.”
“Mississippi law necessitates that a case involving a title dispute, a trust and injunctive relief be heard in the chancery court,” the memo states.
The memo also asks the court to “defer to the PCUSA’s governance procedures because all of the issues stated in FPC Corinth’s complaint are ecclesiastical issues addressed in the Book of Order.”
Newton filed a response to the transfer request April 6. He argues that the motion should be denied “because some of Corinth’s claims are legal in nature and, thus, within this court’s general jurisdiction.”
“The only grants of jurisdiction to chancery courts relevant to this case are: (1) jurisdiction over suits to try title, cancel deeds or clouds upon title, and to decree and to displace possession; and (2) all matters in equity,” the response states. “Therefore, the issue before this court is whether any of Corinth’s claims are outside the narrow scope of these two limited grants of jurisdiction to the chancery court and, thus, within the circuit court’s jurisdiction.”
The response also states that the PCUSA Constitution contains clauses purportedly giving the presbytery the authority to:
- “Determine which members of Corinth constitute the ‘true’ members of the church and are, therefore, entitled to Corinth’s property.”
- “Determine use and ownership of Corinth’s property.”
- “Prevent Corinth from disaffiliating with the PCUSA.”
- “Terminate the pastoral relationship between [the] Rev. Don Elliott and Corinth.”
- “Remove Corinth’s governing body.”
The response asks the court “to declare that none of these provisions are legally enforceable and that, as a church voluntarily associated with the PCUSA, Corinth is only bound by the provisions of the PCUSA Constitution to the extent, and for as long as, it agrees to be bound by them.”
“Corinth is also asking the court,” the response states, “to find that no contractual or other legal relationship exists between Corinth and the presbytery and/or the PCUSA.”
Preliminary injunctions
On March 13, Freeland filed a response and cross-motion to the church’s motion to extend a temporary restraining order and issue a preliminary injunction. The response asks the court to deny the church’s motion and grant the presbytery a preliminary junction.
The presbytery’s requested preliminary injunction would prevent First Presbyterian Corinth from “further encumbering, selling, divesting or otherwise transferring any property, real or personal,” until the court either:
- “Adjudges a final decision in this case,” or
- “Defers this case to the presbytery to make a determination of the issues.”
The response also seeks an order preventing the church “from arguing that it is not bound by the Book of Order. … Due to FPC Corinth’s historical compliance with and dedication to the connectional, hierarchal structure of the PCUSA, it is bound by all provisions of the Book of Order.”
The response also notes that deeds show the church property “is held by the ‘Trustees of the First Presbyterian Church, U.S., Corinth, Mississippi.’ As the church’s denomination of membership at this time was the ‘Presbyterian Church, U.S.,’ this is a clear acknowledgment by FPC Corinth that its property is now held in trust by its trustees for the use and benefit of the St. Andrew Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church (USA), in fulfilling its mission in Corinth.”
The response also scoffs at the church’s “repeated references to its fear of immediate, irreparable harm and ‘retaliatory action’ by the presbytery.” Such fear “is completely unfounded,” the response states, “and has no basis in any reality or in any action taken by the presbytery.”
The response states the presbytery sent a letter to the court Feb. 23 saying “no retaliatory measures had been contemplated or discussed by the presbytery. … The presbytery would not take any action whatsoever, as it relates to either FPC Corinth or FPC Corinth’s minister, that did not conform to the provisions of the Book of Order and all of the notice, deliberation, due process and appeal requirements those provisions contain.”
“Furthermore,” states a memo in support of the response, “the presbytery has already offered FPC Corinth a consent agreement by which both parties would agree to take no action affecting the property in any way during the pendency of the dispute resolution process.”
The memo also questions whether the church’s effort to disaffiliate and litigate has universal support among the congregation. “Perhaps the persons within FPC Corinth who authorized the litigation,” the memo states, “are more intent on asking for forgiveness than permission to leave the denomination in accordance with the terms of the Book of Order.”
On April 6, Newton filed a reply in support of the church’s motion for a preliminary injunction and response to the presbytery’s cross-motion for its own preliminary injunction. The reply argues that First Presbyterian Corinth “still needs immediate injunctive relief to prevent the Presbytery of St. Andrew from interfering with Corinth’s property and daily operations.”
“It is believed,” the reply states, “that the presbytery is in the process of forming an administrative commission to deal with Corinth and its pastor and session. On May 1, 2007, there is a stated meeting of the presbytery where this administrative commission will almost certainly be formed and empowered.”
The reply warns that the commission will have “authority to attempt to take disciplinary action against Corinth’s pastor … and possibly with authority to try to replace Corinth’s session.” It argues that the church still faces “imminent irreparable harm” without an injunction.
“Corinth is not asking the court to enjoin the presbytery from meeting or even from forming an administrative commission,” the reply states. “Corinth is simply asking that, in addition to not taking any actions that would affect Corinth’s property, the presbytery be enjoined from taking any actions that would disrupt Corinth’s relationship with its pastor, session, daily operations or otherwise interfere with the prosecution of this lawsuit.”
Newton’s reply seeks a temporary restraining order that would keep the presbytery from:
- 1. “Filing any documents in the mortgage and conveyance records of Alcorn County … to place a cloud on the title of any property titled in the name of Corinth or its trustees, or otherwise taking any action to claim ownership of Corinth’s property.
- 2. “Asserting any rights to Corinth’s property, including, without limitation, seeking to change Corinth’s locks or freeze its assets.
- 3. “Attempting to replace Corinth’s duly elected session.
- 4. “Contacting members of Corinth for purposes of trying to establish an organized opposition to the subject litigation or discuss matters related to the recommendation of Corinth’s session that it move in the direction of leaving the PCUSA.
- 5. “Taking any action that would purport to change the pastoral relationship between Corinth and its pastor.
- 6. “Taking any action that would purport to affect the authority of Corinth’s duly elected session to act on behalf of Corinth.
- 7. “Interfering with any of Corinth’s employment contracts or other obligations.
- 8. “Interfering with the normal duties and responsibilities of Corinth’s pastor, officers or employees.”
The reply argues that “the provisions of the Book of Order are not legally enforceable. They do not create property rights and they do not confer upon the presbytery the legal authority to disrupt Corinth’s daily operations.”
The reply agrees with the presbytery’s response that Corinth’s property is held in the name of its trustees. “But the trustees are not (and have never been) appointed or elected by the presbytery or the PCUSA,” it states. “Consequently, Corinth’s trustees do not hold the property in trust for the PCUSA or the presbytery.”
The reply also cites a New York Supreme Court judge’s ruling in August 2006 that found “the PCUSA property provisions did not create legal interests in the congregation’s property.” In Presbytery of Hudson River of the Presbyterian Church (USA) v. Trustees of First Presbyterian and Congregation of Ridgebury, the court “reasoned that the PCUSA could not unilaterally create legal interests in the congregation’s property, and the congregation did not evince an intent to create a trust in favor of the PCUSA by simply remaining a part of the denomination.”
Motion for summary judgment
On April 6, Newton filed a motion for a summary judgment. The church is seeking an order with the judgment that declares:
- “Corinth owns all of its property free from any interests asserted by the presbytery and/or the PCUSA.
- “The presbytery has no authority to determine which members of Corinth constitute the true church.”
The church cites four factors in its claim to ownership of its property:
- 1. “All of the deeds are properly titled in the name of its trustees for its use and benefit.
- 2. “All of the property was acquired exclusively through the contributions of its members (the presbytery and the PCUSA did not contribute anything).
- 3. “Corinth has never deeded or otherwise transferred any interest in its property to the presbytery or the PCUSA.
- 4. “Corinth never created an express or implied trust in favor of the presbytery or the PCUSA.”
“In contrast,” the motion states, “the presbytery claims ownership of Corinth’s property solely under the provisions of the