California court rules against Methodist law on church property
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, August 25, 2004
The California 5th District Court of Appeal has ruled that a congregation that severed its ties with the United Methodist Church can retain its property.
It was the second ruling by a secular state court since 2000 to award the property to a congregation that had renounced the jurisdiction of its denomination. In September 2000, the Maryland Court of Appeals rendered a decision in favor of the dissenting congregation in a AME Zion Church dispute.
In both cases, the denominations were asserting their claim to the property under their constitutional provisions that say all church property – although paid for by the members of the congregation through their gifts – is held in trust for the denomination.
Many denominations, including the Presbyterian Church (USA), have property trust clauses in their constitutions. The United States Supreme Court has not invalidated any of the clauses, although state courts and lower federal courts have occasionally ruled in favor of the dissident congregations.
Neither the Maryland case, involving a congregation called “From the Heart Church Ministries,” nor the California case sets national legal precedent.
But they show that some courts do not believe denominational property trust laws are absolute.
In the California case, a denominational dispute arose between St. Luke’s United Methodist Church and the denomination in 2000. St. Luke’s leaders and members withheld funding to protest same-sex union services that were being conducted in their conference. They clashed with Methodist Bishop Melvin Talbert, now retired.
Talbert has been one of the leading advocates for ordaining homosexuals and conducting union services for same-gender couples. Along with Clifton Kirkpatrick, stated clerk of the Presbyterian Church (USA), Talbert has also been one of the most powerful leaders in the National Council of Churches.
In retaliation for St. Luke’s strong opposition to his leadership, Talbert removed the congregation’s pastor from the pulpit and assigned another minister to serve the church. Arriving for his second day on the job, the new minister found himself locked out as the congregation staged a theological coup.
St. Luke’s incorporated an independent congregation called St. Luke’s Community Church and Methodist officials sued St. Luke’s leaders for breach of contract. A trial court ruled in favor of the denomination.
While further litigation was pending, the circuit court said, St. Luke’s revised its articles of incorporation “to establish and maintain a church … which … shall follow the tenets of Methodism, but which shall not be subject in any manner to the articles, rules, usage, discipline, or jurisdiction of the United Methodist Church or any organization or other entity which is part of and/or affiliated with the United Methodist Church.”
The congregation also asserted its right “to acquire, manage, and hold in trust for the sole benefit of this Corporation property of every kind and nature, both real and personal ….”
“In short, St. Luke’s would not be affiliated with the United Methodist Church and would hold its property in trust for itself only,” the 5th District Court said.
The district court, citing California property law as a basis for its decision, reversed the trial judge’s ruling that the denomination owned the St. Luke’s property.
Methodist lawyers are reviewing the decision to determine whether they will appeal the verdict.
The Rev. Kevin Smith, pastor of St. Luke’s, said he feels the conference will probably appeal, but he wishes it would not. “Enough money has been spent in this case already,” he told the United Methodist News Service.
Robert M. Shannon, trial attorney for the California-Nevada Conference, told the news service, “We believe the trial court [in June 2002] made the right decision after hearing all the evidence in the case and we strongly disagree with the contrary ruling by the Court of Appeal.”
In the AME Zion case, the Maryland court, referring to that denomination’s property clause, said, “There is no express provision dealing with the disposition of church property when a local church disaffiliates from the denomination and certainly there is not an express provision mandating that such church relinquish its property upon that occurrence. Consent to holding property in trust during the course of affiliation does not automatically constitute consent to relinquishing that property once the affiliation terminates.”
Presbyteries in the Presbyterian Church (USA) have allowed some congregations in the denomination to leave with their property – but they required them to pay their way out. Four Confessing Church congregations that left the denomination between April 2002 and April 2004 paid nearly $1.3 million to retain their property. The presbytery confiscated the property of a fifth congregation.
PCUSA church law governing property ownership is spelled out in G-8.0201 of the Book of Order:
- All property held by or for a particular church, a presbytery, a synod, the General Assembly, or the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), whether legal title is lodged in a corporation, a trustee or trustees, or an unincorporated association, and whether the property is used in programs of a particular church or of a more inclusive governing body or retained for the production of income, is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).