SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1923-17T1

CEDAR GROVE BAPTIST 

CHURCH,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JEROME BRANHAM,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________

Submitted December 18, 2018 – Decided

Before Judges Fisher and Hoffman.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Essex County, Docket No. C000217-16.

Coffy Law, LLC, attorneys for appellant (Emmanuel 

Coffy and Ralph Gerstein, on the brief).

Celeste Dudley-Smith, attorney for respondent.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Cedar Grove Primitive Baptist Church (the church) – a member 

of the Northeastern Primitive Baptist Association (the association) –

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

January 2, 2019
2

A-1923-17T1

commenced this General Equity action, alleging defendant Jerome Branham –

the church's pastor – first attempted to withdraw the church from the association 

without proper authorization and later unlawfully locked out the church's acting 

pastor, officers, and members, from the church's property on Mercer Street in 

Newark. The church sought an injunction barring Branham from church 

property and other related relief.

After a two-day bench trial, Judge Thomas M. Moore rendered fact 

findings and concluded the church was entitled to the relief sought. Branham 

appeals, arguing:

I. [THE CHURCH] HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH 

THAT IT HAS ANY DULY ENACTED BY-LAWS 

THAT GOVERN THE RIGHT OF A MEMBER 

CHURCH TO WITHDRAW FROM THE ASSOCIATION.

II. EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE "ASSOCIATION 

GOVERNMENT" WAS A VALIDLY ENACTED BYLAW, IT DOES NOT REQUIRE DEFENDANT TO 

OBTAIN A VOTE OF THE MEMBER OR MEMBERS 

BEFORE WITHDRAWING FROM THE ASSOCIATION.

III. EVEN ASSUMING THAT [THE CHURCH'S] 

WITHDRAWAL FROM THE ASSOCIATION CONSTITUTED A BREACH OF THE AGREEMENT, THE 

COURT IMPOSED REMEDIES WHICH ARE NOT 

CALLED FOR EITHER BY THE AGREEMENT OR 

NEW JERSEY LAW.
3

A-1923-17T1

IV. IF THIS COURT UPHOLDS THE [TRIAL] 

COURT DECISION TO ALLOW THE REMOVAL OF 

[BRANHAM] AS MINISTER AND TO ALLOW THE 

ASSOCIATION TO TAKE OVER THE PROPERTY 

OF THE . . . CHURCH, THEN [BRANHAM] IS 

ENTITLED TO RECOVER IN QUANTUM MERUIT 

FOR REPAIRS, MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CHURCH.

We find insufficient merit in these arguments to warrant discussion in a written 

opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E), and affirm substantially for the reasons expressed 

in Judge Moore's thoughtful and well-reasoned oral decision. We add only a 

few brief comments.

Judge Moore observed that, contrary to Branham's assertion, the church 

had been an association member from the association's inception in 1927 and 

without interruption until Branham told church elder and moderator, Alfonso

Tolliver, in July 2015, that he was "disassociating" from the association and 

"taking the church with him." Tolliver objected and told Branham his actions 

were out of order and contrary to association regulations. In September 2015, 

the association met and voted to terminate Branham's leadership position with 

the church.

Judge Moore correctly recognized that the case presented a "primary 

question": whether Branham was authorized to withdraw the church from the 

association. The evidence, the judge concluded, compelled "a resounding no"
4

A-1923-17T1

to that question. In explaining, the judge described the manner in which the 

church might disassociate and, by comparison, concluded proper procedure had

not been followed. The judge concluded – on considering the association 

regulations, the testimony he found credible, and the corroboration provided by 

Branham's concealment of his actions for eight months, among other things –

that Branham lacked the authority to withdraw the church from the association,

and that Branham "knew that he had absolutely no right to do so in the manner 

he did" but "did it anyway." Judge Moore's findings were well-supported by the 

credible evidence and command our deference. See Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. 

Inv'rs. Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974).

We lastly express our agreement with Judge Moore that his ability to 

resolve the issues posed by this lawsuit was unimpeded by constitutional 

principles that recognize a wall between church and state. The decision did not 

require the court's determination of disputes about religious doctrine or 

ecclesiastical policy, see McKelvey v. Pierce, 173 N.J. 26 (2002); Elmora 

Hebrew Ctr., Inc. v. Fishman, 125 N.J. 404, 413 (1991), only whether 

established procedures were followed. Both parties agree their disputes were 

constitutionally justiciable.

Affirmed.