EPC’s Ridgebury asks for appeal
By Edward Terry, The Layman, April 6, 2010
Claiming a previous court violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution when it ruled in favor of the presbytery, The Church at Ridgebury in Slate Hill, N.Y., wants a higher court to hear its case.
In January 2010, the appellate division of the New York Supreme Court reversed a ruling that favored the former Presbyterian Church (USA) congregation’s claims to its property. Ridgebury, which left the PCUSA in 2005 in favor of the more conservative Evangelical Presbyterian Church, is hoping a higher court will recognize its neutral principles of law arguments. But the church must first get permission to take its case to the New York State Court of Appeals.
“The disparate treatment given to Ridgebury Church, denying its rights which other persons would be entitled to under the neutral laws of the state is a clear reason for granting leave to appeal in this case,” court documents state. “Clearly the court(’s) understanding of Neutral Principles of Law is flawed. People of any faith can clearly see that the court … was directly addressing religious issues in making its decision.”
Among the arguments the January ruling ignored, Ridgebury attorney and member Don Nichol said in a previous Layman article, were that a deed proves ownership and the PCUSA’s property trust provision does not apply to the more than 200-year-old congregation, because it never granted such a trust.
The Ridgebury request for appeal, which was filed March 29, outlines 20 questions that support its case In addition to the basic First Amendment protections, its arguments include:
- the right of pre-1828 incorporated churches to change denominations while retaining property, based on New York Religious Corporations Law;
- the previous court did not confine its review of the judgment to undisputed facts;
- the previous court failed to recognize sworn statements concerning the purchase, possession, use, maintenance, occupancy of, and title to its property;
- the previous court’s enforcement denominationalism has a “chilling effect” on the free exercise of religion.
“Here the facts and neutral principles of law both show that Ridgebury Church bought and paid for, owned and possessed, held title to and never surrendered its property,” the church argues. “The presbytery’s only claim is a disputed religious claim based on a disputed provision added to a religious constitution after Ridgebury had already acquired its property. The validity of the presbytery’s claim may not be decided without deciding fundamental issues of religious doctrine.”
In its final legal argument, Ridgebury contends that for the court to avoid intruding on “forbidden religious subjects” and constitutional violations, it should adopt a formal title approach to church property disputes. Citing the recent Presbytery of Ohio Valley vs. Olivet Presbyterian Church case, which was clearly decided on the neutral principles of law, Ridgebury argues that approach would bring certainty to land titles and end the need for such legal disputes.
“The current open ended system leaves the fate of the property to the decision of the last court,” the argument states. “Rather, a sure and certain system of land titles will allow both denominations and local churches to turn their attention away from the courts and back to the worship place and to their religious purposes.”