PLC files amicus brief in Timberridge dispute
The Layman, April 19, 2012
A Georgia-based Presbyterian church has found a friend in the Presbyterian Lay Committee after the organization filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in support of the church’s property-dispute appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The PLC filed the brief to bolster the efforts of Timberridge Presbyterian Church in its attempt to receive a writ of certiorari that would allow an appeal to the nation’s highest court after receiving an unfavorable decision by the Georgia Supreme Court in November.
The state Supreme Court reversed an appellate court ruling that declared the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s property trust clause null and void with respect to property owned by Timberridge and allowed the tract to be confiscated by the Presbytery of Greater Atlanta.
“The PLC has served as an advocate on behalf of congregations concerned with the misapplication of ecclesial governance and the improper usurping of authority and improper seizure of property,” the PLC brief states, adding that the organization is “composed of Presbyterian church members who are concerned with the integrity of the denomination’s theology, polity and stewardship.”
In March, Timberridge filed the petition and will be joined by Carter G. Phillips, managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Sidley Austin – a veteran attorney who has presented more cases (74) before the U.S. Supreme Court than any other private-practice attorney.
In its brief, Timberridge states the primary question under consideration is: “Whether the ‘neutral principles’ doctrine embodied in the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment permits imposition of a trust on church property when the creation of that trust violates the state’s property and trust laws.”
“Multi-tiered denominational entities have been given a free pass to declare themselves beneficial owners of local church properties, taking the titled landowners’ property when churches withdraw from the denomination,” the PLC amicus brief states, adding, “Courts have been all too willing to permit this alienation of property even when the landowner challenges the validity of the claim of trust, and even when the purported basis for the claim of trust fails to meet state law standards for trust creation.”
Church-property blogger A.S. Haley notes that the case would provide “an ideal vehicle” for resolving the issue of whether or not denominations may claim church property via trust clauses and adds that the facts of the Timberridge case could provide an excellent test case for the Supreme Court since “the conflict among state courts has become widespread, to the degree that the doctrine of ‘neutral principles’ itself is threatened.”
If granted a hearing, Timberridge is expected to argue that the Georgia Supreme Court ruling granted an exemption to religious denominations from state property laws – especially given the fact that Timberridge claims it never agreed to put its property in trust to the PCUSA and that its ownership of the property wasn’t contested.
In fact, Georgia Supreme Court Justice Carley and Chief Justice Hunstein, in their dissenting opinion in November, called the majority opinion “contrived,” adding that it “virtually ignores a necessary element of trusts … the intent of the settler, which must be ascertained with reasonable certainty for an express trust to exist.”
The PLC’s brief notes that the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision concerning church property disputes – Jones v. Wolf (1979)—has been misinterpreted by many courts – including Georgia’s highest.
Jones suggested “neutral principles of law” as a guideline for state courts but “several state courts have misconstrued an example given [in the decision] to legitimize ecclesiastical declarations of trust which would otherwise fail for want of compliance with standard state property laws,” the PLC brief claims.
“The effect of this misconstruction has been to violate the Establishment Clause and divest legally seized property owners of their lands against their will, and without compensation,” the brief adds.
The PLC brief also points out that the manner in which the Georgia Supreme Court interpreted neutral principles could allow a denomination to evade state property laws simply by the “unilateral self-declaration.”
A denomination could then declare a trust to be created by “ecclesial act,” knowing that civil courts will refuse to review such acts or “will defer to [the denomination] regardless of the property owner’s protests.” Such an interpretation, the brief argues “entirely defeats the concept of neutral principles.”
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty also filed an amicus brief in the appeal. In the brief, the group describes itself as “a non-profit, nonpartisan law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions.”
“The Becket Fund is concerned that the Supreme Court of Georgia’s adoption of a unilateral denominational trust rule, in conflict with decisions by other state courts, unjustly interferes with the ability of churches to control their polities,” the brief states.
In his blog, Haley notes that Christ Church of Savannah, Ga. and Bishop Seabury Church in Groton, Conn. have also filed Supreme Court review of similar property disputes.
“All of the [U.S. Supreme Court’s] major pronouncements in church property cases since 1969 have been in the course of its reviewing decisions from the Supreme Court of Georgia,” Haley said. “We are about to see whether the Timberridge case will furnish the occasion for yet another one.”