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. C

000 217

- 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 Pr imitive 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– NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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, 20192 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
pa stor, officers, and members , from the church's property on Mercer Street in Newark. The church sought an injunction barring Branham from church property an d othe r 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 ASSOCI

ATION.
II. EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE "ASSOCIATION GOVERNMENT" WAS A VALIDLY ENACTED BY

LAW, IT DOES NOT REQUIRE DEFENDANT TO OBTAIN A VOTE OF THE MEMBER OR MEMBERS BEFORE WITHDRA WING FROM THE ASSOCI

ATION. III. EVEN ASSUMING THAT [THE CHURCH'S] WITHDRAWAL FROM THE ASSOCIATION CON

STITUTED 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 UP HOLDS THE [TRIAL] COURT DECISION TO ALLOW THE REMOVAL OF [BRANHAM] AS MINISTER AND TO ALLOW THE ASS OCIATION TO TAKE OVER THE PROPER TY OF THE . . . CHURCH, THEN [BRANHAM] IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER IN QUANTUM MERUIT FOR REPAIRS, MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVE

MENTS 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 substantia lly for the reasons expressed in Judge Moore's thoughtful and well

- reasoned oral decision

. We add only a few b rief comments. Judge Moore observed that, contrary to Branham's a ssertion, the church had been an association member from the association's inception in 1927 and without inter ruption 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 assoc iation r egulations. I n September 2015, the association met and voted to termi nate Branham's leadership positi on with the church. Judge Moore correctly recognized that the case presented a " primary question" : whether Branham was authorized to withdraw the c hurch from the
association. T he evidence , the judge concluded, compelled "a resoundin g no "4 A

- 1923

- 17T1

to that question. In explaining, the judge described the manner in which the church might disassociate and , by comparison, con cluded 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 "kne w that he had absolutely no right to do s o in the manner he did" but "did it anyway

. " Judge Moore 's findings were well

- supported by the credible evide nce and command our deference. See Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs. Ins. Co. , 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974). We lastly express our agre ement with Judge Moore that his ability to resolve the issue s posed by this lawsuit was un impeded by constitutional principles that recognize a wall between church and state. The decision did not require the court's determinati on of disputes about religious doctrine or ecclesiastical policy, s ee 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 disput es were constitutionally justiciable.
Affirmed.