I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 8 - CA- 0 0 4 1 6 - S CT F RA N K L . S C H MI D T , S R . , A N D H EN R Y W. KI NNEY , ET AL.
v. C A T H O L IC D IO C ESE O F B I L OX I , T H O M A S J. RODI AND DENN

I SCARVER
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 02/ 27/ 2008 TRI AL J UDG E: HON . THOM AS L . ZE BER T COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HARRI S ON COU NTY CHANCERY COURT A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L A N T S : V IR G IL G . G IL L E S P IE W I LLI A M J . BL A SS ERI C D . W OO TEN H EN RY W . K I N N EY , PRO SE AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E S : J UL I E J AR RE L L GR E S HAM S T E P HE N J . CA RMODY KEV I N J . NEC AI SE NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER DI S P OS I T I ON: AF F I RMED I N P AR T ; RE VE RS E D AND R E M A N D E D I N PA R T - 09/ 17/ 2009 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

B E F O R E W A L L E R , C . J. , L A M A R A N D P I E R C E , JJ. W ALLER, CH I EF J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1 . O n e h u n d re d an d fifty- se v e n fo rm e r p a rish io n e rs o f th e S t. P a u l C a th o lic C h u rc h in Pas s C hr i s t i an ( “Pl ai nt i f f s ”) f i l ed s ui ti n t he C hance ry C our tof H arr i s on C ounty agai ns tt he C athol i c D i oces e of

B i l oxi , I nc. , M os tR ever end Thom as J . R odi , as B i s hop and Pr es i dent of the B i l oxi D i ocese, an d R ever end D enni s C arver , i ndi vi dual l y and as pas t orof St . Paul

### So me of th e orig inal p laintiffs d id n ot jo in th is app eal. 1 

### 2 C hur ch ( her ei naf

t ercol l ect i vel y“C hur ch D ef endant s ”). P l ai nt i f

f s s oughtdecl ar at ory and i nj unct i ve r el i ef

af t erB i s hop R odi ef

f ect i vel y cl os ed the St . Paul C hur ch, w hi ch had be en damaged i n H urr i cane K atr i na. Pl ai nt i f f s as s ert ed, i n pa r t , thatBi s hop Rodi he l d the St . Paul pr operty i n trus tf

orthe mem ber s of

the St . Paul C hur ch, t hat a ny f i nanci al contr i but i ons des i gnat ed f

orr econs truct i on of

the chur ch w er e hel d i n trus tf orthatpart i cul arpurpos e, t hat C hur ch D ef

endants h ad vi ol at ed s ai d trus t s , and thatFatherC arverhad made
m i s r epr es ent at i ons i n s ol i ci t i ng donat i ons f orthe r ebui l di ng ef

f or t s . T he cha ncel l or di s m i s s ed Pl ai nt i f

f s ’ cl ai m s w i th pr ej udi ce, f i ndi ng thatthe cour tlacked s ubj ectm att er j ur i s di ct i on b as ed on the chur ch aut onom y doctr i ne of the Fi r s tA m endmentt o the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on. P l ai nti f f s now f i l e thi s appea l . W e af f i r m i n part , and r ever s e and 1
re m a n d in p a rt . F ACT S & PROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2. T he St . Paul C athol i c C hur ch w as e s t abl i s hed i n 1847 i n Pas s Chri s t i an, by the R om an C athol i c C hur ch. T he R om an C athol i c C hur ch i s a hi er ar chi cal chur ch, m eani ng thatl ocal
c h u rc h e s a re su b o rd in a te m e m b e rs o f th e g e n e ra l c h u rc h , w h ich m a in tain s u lti m a te a u th o rity
o r c o n tr o l. See W

at s on v. Jones , 8 0 U . S . 6 7 9 , 7 2 2 -27 , 1 3 W all . 6 7 9 , 2 0 L . E d . 6 6 6 (18 7 2 ). T he St . Paul campus e xpanded thr oughoutthe yea r s , i ncl uding t he es t abl i s hm entof an e lem e n tar y s c h o o l. A c c o rd in g to late st e stim a tes , it s c o n g re g a tio n n u m b e re d a p p ro x im a tely 7 0 0 m e m b e rs .

### 3

¶3. O n A ugus t29, 2005, H urr i cane K at ri na ravaged the M i s s i s s i ppi G ul f C oas t . T he sto rm c a u se d ex ten siv e d a m a g e to th e S t. P a u l pr o p e rty . S t. P a u l’s g y m n a siu m an d the S t. Paul C athol i c El ement ary School es s ent i al l y w er e des tr oyed . The a c tua l c hu r c h bui l di ng w as al so dam aged , al tho ug h the ext ent of the d am age is dis pu t ed by the pa rt i es. P l ai nti ff s i nsi st thatthe chur ch r emai ns s tructur al l y s ound, thatm any of i t s s acr ed art i cl es w er e unharm ed, and thatr epai rcos t s s houl d be l es s than $2. 5 m i l l i on. C hur ch D ef endant s m ai nt ai n thatthe chur ch and i t s m os ts acr ed plac es w er e “de s tr oyed i n l ar ge part . ” A ccor di ng t o C hur ch D e fe n d a n ts: [ T ] he al t arof

G od[ , ] w her e the mi r acl e of the Euchar i s ti s cel ebrat ed[ , ] w as d a m a g e d [,] a n d th e tab e rn a c le[,] w h ich is th e re p o sito ry w h e re th e H o ly E u c h a rist . . . is k e p t, w a s d a m a g e d . A d e d ica ted C a th o lic C h u rc h lo se s its bl es s i ng, a nd thus , i s no l ongera Cat hol i c C hur ch, i f i ti s de s tr oyed i n lar ge part . C anon 1212 [ of

the C ode of

Canon Law of

the R om an C athol i c C hur ch] s t at es , “Sacr ed pl ace s l os e thei rdedi cat i on orbl es s i ng i f they have been des tr oyed i n l ar ge part. . . . ” B e c a u se o f th is d a m a g e , C h u rc h D e fe n d a n ts c la im th a t S t. P a u l ce a se d to b e a C a th o lic
c h u rc h o n A u g u s t 2 9 , 2 0 0 5 . ¶4. O n N ovember 27, 2005, B i s hop R odi i s sued a decr ee m er gi ng the S t . Paul and O ur L ady of L our des Par i s hes t o f

or m a new par i s h cal l ed the H ol y Fam i l y Par i s h. T he dec r ee s t at ed thatthe H ol y Fam i l y Par i s h w oul d m ai nt ai n tw o c hur ch edi f i ces , St . Paul C hur ch and O urL ady of

L our des C hur ch. T he dec r ee a l so p rovi ded tha t“[ i ] n acc or dance w i th canon 12 1, H oly Fam i l y P ari sh ob t ai ns the go od s and pat ri m on i al r i gh t s proper t o S ai nt Paul Pari sh and O urL ady of

L our des Par i s h as w el l as the obl i gat i ons w i th w hi ch they w er e bur dened

. . . . ” Pur s uantt o thi s decr ee, pl ans w er e i ni t i at ed t o r ebui l d the St . Paul C hur ch, and donat i ons w er e s ol i ci t ed and gi ven f orthatpurpos e. M or e than one ye arl at er , on M ar ch 13,

### 4

2007, B i s hop R odi i s s ued a se cond decr ee announc i ng t hatO urL ady of L our des w oul d be the onl y c hur ch i n the H ol y Fami l y Par i s h. Thi s deci s i on ef f ect i vel y cl os ed the door s of t he St . Paul C hur ch. A ccor di ng t o F atherC arver , thi s deci s i on w as m ade be caus e of a s hor t age of pr i es t s , and bec aus e O urL ady of L our des C hur ch, unl i ke St . Paul , i s l ocat ed i n a nonfl o o d -z o n e a re a . ¶5. T he f

utur e us e of the St . Paul pr operty r emai ns uncl ear . Pl ai nt i f f s as s ert thatC hur ch D e fe n d a n ts in ten d to re n o v a te th e c h u rc h a n d c o n v e rt it i n to a c o m m u n ity c e n ter , a p u b lic
m onum ent , ora mem or i al edi f i ce. C hur ch D ef

endant s , how ever , cl ai m thatno deci s i on has b e e n re a c h e d a s to w h a t w ill b e d o n e w ith th e p ro p e rt y . ¶6. A num ber of St . Paul ’ s f or m er par i s hi oner s , i ncl udi ng s om e of the P l ai nti ff s i n t he
s ubj ectcas e, f

i l ed a c anoni cal appea l thr ough the R om an C at ho l i c C hur ch’ s ecc l es i as t i cal tr i bunal s . O n N ovember30, 2007, the V at i can i s s ued a decr ee w hi ch s t at ed thatB i s hop R odi h a d a c te d in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e re q u ir e m e n ts a n d p ro c e d u re s s e t f o rt h u n d e r c a n o n la w . ¶7. A s the canoni cal a ppeal pr oces s w as pendi ng, on M ay 1, 2007, Pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed a t hi r tyfi ve-pag e com plai nt i n the H arr i son C ou nty C han cery C ou rtagainstC hu rch D efendan t s, s eeki ng decl ar at ory and i nj unct i ve r el i ef , an ac count i ng, and damages . Pl ai nt i f f s s peci f i ed el even prayers f

or r el i ef, w hich m ay b e sum m ari zed as fol l ow s: 1) R eques t e d a dj ud i c a t i on of w hetherC hur ch D ef

endant s hol d the St . Paul pr operty i n trus tf

orthe bene f

i tof Pl ai nt i f f s , and w hetherC hur ch D ef endant s br eac hed s uch duty by fai l i ng t o pr oper l y m ai nt ai n the chur ch i n the af

t erm ath of H urr i cane K atr i na, and by conve r t i ng the property fora secul ar use, i . e. , a com m un i ty cen t er, w i tho ut Pl ai nti ff s’ c o n s e n t/a p p ro v a l. 2) R eques t ed adj udi cat i on of w hetheri ns ur ance pr ocee ds s t emm i ng f r om pr operty damage as a r es ul tof H urr i cane K atr i na, and donat i ons m ade

### 5 forthe spec i fi c pu rpose of St. P aul’ s r econ struct i on , are h eld i n trust a n d m u s t b e u s e d e x c lu s iv e ly fo r r e b u ild in g e ff o rt s . 3) R eques t ed an a c c ou nt i ng f r om A ug us t29 , 20 05 , of a l l c on tr i bu t i ons m a d e to S t. P a u l C h u rc h . 4) R eques t ed a deter m i nati on as t o w hether F at her C ar ver m ade in ten tio n a l m isre p re se n tatio n s b y so licit in g d o n a tio n s to re b u ild S t. P a u l, w h ile h a v in g p e rso n a l k n o w led g e th a t th e d e c isio n n o t to re b u ild a lr e a d y h a d b e e n m a d e . P lain tiffs fu rth e r so u g h t an in ju n c tio n to p re v e n t C h u rc h D e fe n d a n ts f ro m c o n v e rtin g th e S t. Paul pr operty i nt o a co m m uni ty cent er , or“s el l i ng, encumber i ng, and/ orconveyi ng” any p o rt io n o f t h e S t. P a u l p ro p e rt y , w ith o u t P la in tif fs ’ a p p ro v a l. ¶8. O n J une 4, 2007, Churc h D ef endant s f i l ed thei r ans w er and def ens es , w i th a mot i on t o di s m i s s f

orl ack of

s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on. I n thei rm oti on t o di s m i s s , C hur ch D ef endant s as s ert ed thatthe chanc ery c our tl acke d s ubj ectmat t erj ur i s di ct i on ba s ed on t he chur ch aut ono m y doctr i ne of the Fi r s tA m endment , w hi ch pr ohi bi t s ci vi l court s f r om r evi ew i ng i nt ernal chur ch di s put es thati nvol ve mat t er s of chur ch governance , fai th, and d o c tr in e . K

edr of f v. St . N i cholas Cathedr al , 3 4 4 U .S . 9 4 , 1 1 6 -1 7 , 9 7 L . E d . 1 2 0 , 7 3 S . C t. 1 4 3 (1 9 5 2 ). F o r sup p o rt , C h u rch D efe n d an ts att ac h ed an affi d av itfr o m B isho p R o d i, i n w hi ch he di s cus s ed ce r t ai n pr ovi s i ons of canon l aw . O n J une 15, 2 00 7, thi s C our tent er ed
a n o rd e r a p p o in tin g J u d g e T h o m a s L . Z e b e rt a s s p e c ia l ju d g e to p re s id e o v e r t h e m a tte r. ¶9 . O n J ul y 20, 2 00 7, Pl a i nt i f f s f i l e d a mot i on t o s tr i ke B i s hop R odi ’ s af f i davi t , or a ltern a tiv e ly , to c o n d u c t d isc o v e ry . P lain tiffs a rg u e d th a t th e ir c laim w a s p u re ly se c u lar in natur e: C hur ch D ef

endant s had vi ol at ed neut r al pr i nci pl es of M i s s i s s i ppi l aw by s ei zi ng a ss e ts h e ld in tru st fo r P la in tif fs ’ b e n e fit. T h e y su b m itt e d th a t B ish o p R o d i’s a ffid a v it

### 6

o ffe re d n o p ro b a tiv e v a lu e b e c a u se it fo c u se d so lely o n h is e c c les ias tica l au th o rity to co n so li d a te th e tw o p arishe s; a p rero g ati v e w h ich th ey h ad n o t qu esti o n ed . P lai n ti ffs ch aract eri zed B i shop R od i ’s aff i dav i tas “pri m ari l y co nsi st i ng of unsup po rt ed co nclusory al l egat i ons ” thathe ha d c om pl i ed w i th c anon l aw . B i s hop R odi had notout l i ned pert i nent canon l aw pr ocedur e, an d had of f er ed no evi dence thathe had f ol l ow ed s uch pr ocedur e. P lain tiffs a ltern a tiv e ly re q u e ste d th a t th e y b e a llo w e d to c o n d u c t d isc o v e ry w ith re g a rd to ju ri s d ic tio n a l f

a c ts . ¶10. A hear i ng w as hel d on Pl ai nt i f f s ’ m ot i on t o s tr i ke on A ugus t 3, 2007. O n A ugus t10, 2007, the chanc el l ori s s ued an or derde nyi ng Pl ai nt i f f s ’ m ot i on t o s tr i ke, butal l ow i ng l i m i t ed di s covery by w ay of

w r i t t en i nt err ogat or i es . T he chanc el l ora gr eed w i th Pl ai nt i ff s t hat B ish o p R o d i’s a ffid a v it w a s c o n c lu so ry a n d h a d lim ited p ro b a tiv e v a lu e , b u t h e re fu se d to s tr i ke i t . T he cha ncel l orf ound thati f

C hur ch D ef

endant s w er e goi ng t o r ai s e ca non l aw as a d e f e ns e , the y s ho ul d be r e qu i r e d t o pr ov e tha tthe y ha d c ompl i e d w i th tho s e rul e s . T he chanc el l orthus held t hat Pl ai nt i f f s w er e ent i t l ed t o di s covery, l i m i t ed i n s cope t o: ( 1) t he pr ocedur e r equi r ed undercanon l aw forcl os i ng a chur ch; ( 2) document s r ef l ect i ng w hether
s uch pr ocedur e w as f

ol l ow ed i n t he cl os i ng of St . Paul ; a nd ( 3) w hetherc anon l aw r equi r ed chur ch l eade r s t o not i f

y donor s w ho had donat ed s peci f i cal l y f orSt . Paul ’ s r ebui l di ng about the cha nge i n pl ans . T her eaf t er , on A ugus t29, 2007, the cha ncel l orent er ed an or deron dis cov ery i ssues and a sche du l i ng order . Pl ai nti ff s f i l ed a m oti on forreconsi derat i on of these tw o di s covery- r el at ed or der s , a s w el l a s a mot i on f ora ddi t i onal t i m e t o r es pond t o C hurc h D ef endant s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s f orl ack of

s ubj ectmat t erj ur i s di ct i on. Fol l ow i ng a hear i ng

### At the be ginning of th e Sept em ber 11, 2007, hearing, the c hanc el lor al so grant ed 2 

### Henry K inn ey’s mo tionto ap pear p ro se.

I n thei rbr i ef

, Pl ai nt i f f s expr es s bew i l derm entr egar di ng w hatt hey i nt erpr etas 3 i rr econc i l abl e di f

f er ence s bet w een the cha ncel l or ’ s A ugus t2007 or derand hi s M ar ch 2008 fin a l ju d g m e n t. In h is A u g u st 2 0 0 7 o rd e r, th e c h a n c e llo r sta ted th a t: T h e is s u e s [P la in tif

fs ] b ri n g b e fo re th is C o u rt a re p u re ly s e c u la r in n a tu re . . .

. N ow here i n the C om plai nt i s t here an y dem and for the [C hu rch D efendan t s] t o r eopen St . Paul chur ch. [ P l ai nti f f s ] have s i m pl y al l eged thati tw oul d be a v iolati o n o f M issi ssipp i l aw for [C h u rch D efe n d an ts] t o seize asse ts th ey are hol di ng i n trus tf

ort he [ Pl ai nt i f

f s ] and conver tt hes e as s et s f orthei row n us e. B uti n hi s M ar ch 2008 f i nal j udgm ent , the cha ncel l orhel d that Plai nt i f f s ’ cl ai m s r equi r ed e x c e s s iv e e n ta n g le m e n t w ith re lig io n , w h ic h is fo rb id d e n b y th e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t. E ven though the A ugus t2007 or derand the M ar ch 2008 f i nal j udgm entr eac h di f f er entconcl us i ons aboutt he natur e of Pl ai nt i f f s ’ s ui t , the tw o or der s ar e noti rr econc i l abl e. I n hi s A ugus t2007 or der , t he cha ncel l orperm i t t ed the part i es t o engage i n l i m i t ed di s covery. H e w a rn e d th e p a rt ie s , h o w e v e r, “ n o t to r e a d m o re in to th is o p in io n th a n w h a t is w ri tte n .” H e e x p lain e d th a t h e h a d n o a u th o rity to se c o n d -g u e ss h ier a rc h ica l d e c isio n s, a n d th a t h is purpo s e i n a l l owi ng di s c ov e r y was l i mi t e d t o d e t e r mi ni ng w ha ts t e ps w e r e r e qu i r e d u nde r canon l aw , and w hetherthos e s t eps had b een fol l ow ed. A f t era f ul l hear i ng on the mot i on 

### 7 on Sept ember11, 2007, the c ha nc e l l ore xt e nd ed the t i m e f ordi s covery and gr ant ed addi t i onal t i m e forP l ai nti ff

s t o respon d to C hu rch D efendan t s’ m oti on t o d i sm i ss. 2 ¶1 1. A f

t er conduct i ng a he a r i ng , the c ha nc e l l or i s s ue d a f i na l j ud gmen t of di s mi s s a l on M ar ch 3, 2008. T he cha ncel l orchar act er i zed the ca s e as an int ernal admi ni s tr at i ve mat t er r atherthan a pr operty di s put e, and f ound thatthe i s s ues coul d notbe hea r d w i thoutexce s s i ve en tang lem en t w ith rel igion . H e d eterm ined that ca n o n law p resc ri b ed a sp ec if ic pro ce d u re f oral t er i ng a par i s h, and thatC hur ch D ef endant s had f

ol l ow ed s uch pr ocedur e. Fur therm or e, the cha ncel l orf

ound that , even i f

a trus texi st ed, Pl ai nt i f f s l acke d s t andi ng. I n s um , t he ch an ce ll o r he ld tha t th e c h u rch au ton o m y d o ctri n e o f th e F ir st A m en dm en t dep ri v ed the c o u rt of s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on, and he di s m i s s ed Pl ai nt i f f s ’ cl ai m s w i th pr ej udi ce. 3t o di s m i s s , w i th f ur therbr i ef

i ng by the part i es , a nd w i th the benef i tof the V at i can’ s decr ee af f i r m i ng B i s hop Rodi ’ s a ct i ons , the chanc el l orc oncl uded thatthe courtl acke d j ur i s di ct i on to h e a r P la in tif

fs ’ c a s e . 

### 8 ¶12. Pl ai nt i f

f s now appea l and r ai s e thr ee as s i gnm ent s of err or : ( I ) w hether the cha ncel l or err ed i n di s m i s s i ng P l ai nt i f f s ’ cl ai m s forl ack of

subj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on; ( I I ) w hethert he chanc el l orer r ed i n fa i l i ng t o str i ke B i s hop R odi ’ s af f i davi t ; and ( I I I ) w hetherthe cha ncel l or err ed i n di s m i s s i ng Pl ai nt i f f s ’ cl ai m s w i th pr ej udi ce. B eca us e w e f i nd the f i r s ttw o i s s ues d is p o s itiv e , w e d o n o t a d d re s s Is s u e II I. DI S CU S S I ON I . W het her t he chancel l or err ed i n di s m i s s i ng Pl ai nt i f f s ’ cl ai m s f

or l ack of

s ubje ct m at t e r j ur i s di c t i on. ¶13. Subj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on i s a thr es hol d i nqui ry w hi ch mustbe det erm i ned bef or e a c o u rt m a y p ro c e e d t o t h e m e r it s . E
. g. , L uckett v. Mis s . W

ood, I nc. , 481 So. 2d 288, 290 ( M i s s . 1985) . A di s m i s s al f orl ack of

s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on i s r evi ew ed d e novo. Robins on v. TCI/

U S W e s t Com m c ’ns , 117 F. 3d 900, 904 ( 5th C i r . 1997) ( ci t i ng McA l lis ter v. Fed. D epos it

I ns. Cor p. , 8 7 F .3 d 7 6 2 , 7 6 5 (5 th C ir.1 9 9 6 )). F in d in g s o f fa c t, ho w e v e r, w ill
n o t b e re v e rs e d if

th e r e c o rd c o n ta in s s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e to s u p p o rt th o s e fi n d in g s . E
. g. , In
re G u a rdia n sh ip o

f D u c k e tt , 991 So. 2d 1165, 1173 ( M i s s . 200 8) ( ci t i ng U H S- Q uali car e, I nc. v. G ul

f Coas t Cm t y. Hos p. , I nc. , 5 2 5 S o . 2 d 7 4 6 , 7 5 3 (M is s . 1 9 8 7 )) . ¶14. W hen a pl ai nti ff’s all egati on s of j ur i s di ct i on ar e ques t i oned, the pl ai nt i f f bear s the bur den t o pr ove j ur i s di ct i on by a pr eponder ance of the evi dence . R os em ound S and & G r avel Co. v. L am ber t

S and & G r avel

Co. , 469 F. 2d 416, 418 ( 5th C i r . 1972) ( ci t i ng McNutt v. G e n. Motors A cce

ptance Cor

p. , 2 9 8 U .S . 1 7 8 , 8 0 L . E d . 1 1 3 5 , 5 6 S . C t. 7 8 0 (1 9 3 6 )) .

### 9

¶ 1 5 . C h a lle n g e s to s u bje c t m a tt e rj u r is d ic ti o n m a y b e e ith e r f a c ia l o r f

a c tu a l. R om an Catholi c D i oces e v. Mor r is on , 905 So. 2d 1213, 1220 ( M i s s . 2005) . “A f aci al att ack a l l eges the courtl acks j ur i s di ct i on as a mat t erof l aw . . . . ” I

d . at1 22 0-21. W i th a f

aci al at t ack,
a lle g a tio n s in th e p la in tif f’ s c o m p la in t a re c o n s id e re d tru e . Me n c h a c a v . Ch ry sle r Cre dit Cor p. , 613 F. 2d 507, 511 (5th C i r . 1980) ( ci t i ng Mo rten sen v. First Fed . S a v. & L o a n A ss’n , 549 F. 2d 884, 891 ( 3d C i r . 1977)) . A fa ctual at t ack, on the otherhand, “r equi r es r es ol ut i on by the tr i al courtof

one orm or e f

actual di s put es i n or dert o det erm i ne subjec tm att er j ur i s di ct i on. ” Mor r is on , 9 05 S o. 2d at1220- 21. I n a f actual att ack, m att er s out s i de the p le a d in g s , s u c h a s te s tim o n y a n d a ff id a v its , a r e c o n s id e re d . Menchaca , 613 F. 2d at511. O nl y thos e undi s put ed, w el l
- pl ed f actual al l egat i ons i n t he pl ai nt i f f’ s com pl ai ntar e ac cept ed
a s tru e . Mor r is on , 905 So. 2d at1221. O therw i s e, the pl ai nt i f f’ s al l egat i ons ar e notpr es um ed tru e , an d th e c o u rt c a n d e c id e iss u e s o f m a ter ial fa c t in o rd e r to d e ter m in e w h e th e r o r n o t it h a s ju ri s d ic tio n . Montezv. D ep’t of the N avy , 3 9 2 F .3 d 1 4 7 , 1 4 9 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); W il liam s on v. Tucker , 645 F. 2d 404, 412- 13 ( 5th C i r . 1981) ( i n a fa ctual R ul e 12( b) ( 1) m ot i on, the tr i al
cour ti s f r e e t o w e i gh the e vi de nc e a nd s a t i s f y i t s e l f tha ti th a s the p owert o he art he ca s e) ( quot i ng Mor tens en , 5 4 9 F . 2 d a t8 9 1 ) . Th e tr i a l c o u r th a s d i s c r e t i o n t o d e v i s e s o me e v id e n tia ry m e th o d fo r t h e lim ite d p u rp o s e o f d e c id in g th e ju ri s d ic tio n a l is s u e . Mor an v. K in g do m o f S a u di A ra b ia , 2 7 F .3 d 1 6 9 , 1 7 2 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ); P aters on v. W einber ger , 6 4 4 F .2 d 5 2 1 , 5 2 3 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 1 ). ¶ 1 6 . T h e lan g u a g e u se d in C h u rc h D e fe n d a n ts’ m o tio n to d ism iss an d the ir b rie f b e fo re th is C o u rt s u g g e s ts a fa c ia l a tta c k , in s o fa r a s n o d e ta ile d fa c tu a l a rg u m e n t is a d v a n c e d . C f. , Mor r is on , 9 0 5 S o . 2 d at 1 2 2 1 . B u t in su p p o rt o f th e ir m o tio n to d ism iss , C h u rc h D e fe n d a n ts

### 10

a ttac h e d a n a ffid a v it fro m B ish o p R o d i. A d d iti o n a lly , th e lo w e r c o u rt a llo w e d th e p a rties to engage i n l i m i t ed di s covery on the i s s ue of j uri sdi ct i on. A ccor di ngl y, w e cons true C hur ch D e fe n d a n ts ’ m o tio n to d is m is s a s a fa c tu a l a tta c k . ¶ 1 7 . P lain tiffs a ss e rt th a t th is c a se c a n b e d e c id e d o n n e u tra l p rin c ip les o f tru st a n d p ro p e rty l aw ; ther ef

or e, the cha ncel l orerr ed i n di s m i s s i ng the cas e f orl ack of

s ubj ectm att er j ur i s di ct i on. A ccor di ng t o Pl ai nt i f f s , thei rc as e cons i s t s pr i m ar i l y of tw o ba s i c i s s ues : ( 1) w ho p o ss e ss e s titl e to th e S t. P a u l pr o p e rty an d (2 ) w h a t are C h u rc h D e fe n d a n ts’ o b lig a tio n s w ith
r egar d t o f

unds donat ed f

orthe r ebui l di ng of

St . Paul C hur ch. C hu rch D efenda nt s cont end th a t “th e c o re ” o f th is d isp u te is a n in ter n a l ch u rc h d isa g re e m e n t o v e r th e d e c isio n n o t to
r ebui l d the chur ch, and t hatP l ai nt i f f s ar e si m pl y m as ki ng thei rcl ai m s as a pr operty di s put e. ¶ 1 8 . P lain tiffs e m p h a tica lly sta te th a t th e y d o n o t c h a llen g e C h u rc h D e fe n d a n ts’ a u th o rity to m e rg e S t. P a u l P a rish w ith O u r L a d y o f L o u rd e s P a rish . T h e y in sis t th a t th e ir adm i nis t rat i ve and c anoni cal conce rns w er e s at i s f i ed thr ough the ca noni cal appea l t o t he V at i can. T he al t er at i on of a par i s h i s , i n f

act , a mat t erof

i nt ernal chur ch governm ent , w hi ch lie s a t th e c o re o f e c c le s ia s tic a l a ff a ir s . See Serbian E astern O rt hodox D i oces e v. Mili vojevich , 4 2 6 U .S . 6 9 6 , 7 2 1 , 9 6 S . C t. 23 7 2 , 4 9 L . E d . 2 d 1 5 1 (1 9 7 6 ); K edro ff , 34 4 U. S. at11 6 (r el i gious fr eedo m incl ud es t he “po w er [ of rel i gious bod i es] t o d eci de for them sel ves, f r ee f r om s t at e i nt er f

er ence , m att er s of

chur ch governm entas w el l as thos e of f ai th and do ct ri ne. ”). A n aff

i dav i tfr om W i l l i am S . S ky l st ad, B i shop o f the R om an C at ho l i c D i ocese of Spokane, W as hi ngt on, C anon 515, Sect i on 2, s t at es that“[ i ] ti s onl y f orthe di oces an bi s hop t o erect , supp res s, or al t er par i shes. ” In the ab sence o f frau d o r col l usi on , ou r court s m ust
a c c e p t th e d e c is io n o f a h ie ra rc h ic a l c h u rc h ’s h ig h e s t tr ib u n a l o n s u c h m a tte rs . See Jones v.

### 11

W o lf , 443 U . S. 595, 609 n. 8, 99 S. C t . 3020, 61 L . E d. 2d 775 ( 1979) ( ci t i ng S erbian E astern O rt h odox D i ocese , 4 2 6 U .S . a t 7 0 9 , 7 1 3 (1 9 7 6 )); buts ee L o u is J . S ir ic o , J r., C h u rc h P ro p e rty D is put es : C hur ches as Sec ularand A l i en I ns t i t ut i ons , 55 For dham L . Rev. 335, 338, 348 n. 61 ( 19 86 ) ( po s tul a t i ng thata ci vi l court ’ s cons t i tut i onal author i ty t o cons i dereven c l ai m s of f r aud
orcol l us i on r emai ns an open- ended que s t i on) . T her e i s no “ arbi tr ar i nes s exce pt i on” w hi ch al l ow s ci vi l court s t o i nqui r e w hethera hi er ar chi cal chur ch com pl i ed w i th i t s ow n l aw s and p ro c e d u re s . S erbian E astern O rt h odox D i ocese , 4 2 6 U .S . at 7 1 3 , 7 1 5 (n o tin g th a t co n c e p ts of due pr ocess and f

undament al f

ai rnes s ar e notr el evantt o m att er s of ecc l es i as t i cal
c o g n iz a n c e ). ¶ 1 9 . W i th th e me r g e ro f t h e t wo p a r i s h e s o f

f
- l i mi t s f o ro u rr e v i e w, th e r e a r e e s s e n t i a l l y two iss u e s fo r w h ich su b

jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n m u st b e d e ter m in e d . F irst, P lain tiffs s u b m it th a t,
n o tw ith sta n d in g th e m e rg e r, C h u rc h D e fe n d an ts r em ain o b li g ate d to h o ld th e S t. P a u l p ro p e rty i n trus tf orPl ai nt i f

f s ’ be nef i t , a nd may notus e ordi s pos e of the pr operty i n any mannerthey choos e. Second, Pl ai nt i f f s cont end thata l l f

unds r ai s ed f

orthe r ebui l di ng of

St . Paul C hur ch
ar e hel d i n t rust , an d thatC hur ch D ef endant s m ay notdi ves tthos e f unds f orany other purpos e. Pl ai nt i f

f s thus s eek a l egal de t erm i nat i on of w hetherthe St . Paul pr operty and/ ort he fu n d s d o n a ted fo r r e b u ild in g e ffo rts a re h e ld in tru st, a n d , if so , w h e th e r C h u rc h D e fe n d a n ts have br eac hed s uch trus t ( s ) . T hi r d, Pl ai nt i f f s as s erta cl ai m of

i nt ent i onal m i s r epr es ent at i on agai ns tFatherC arver . T hey al l ege thatFatherCar vers ol i ci t ed donat i ons f orthe r ebui l di ng o f t h e c h u rc h , w h ile h a v in g k n o w le d g e th a t th e c h u rc h w o u ld n o t b e re o p e n e d . A . W het her our court s have s ubje ct m at t er j uri s di ct i on t o det erm i ne w het her th e S t. P a u l p r o p e r ty is h e ld in tr u s t.

### The Mi ss is sippi Constitution af fords s im il ar

prot ec ti ons: “no pr ef

er enc e s hal l be 4 

### give n by law to any re li gious sec t or modeof worship; but thefr eeenj oyme nt of

al l rel igi ous se ntime nts and the di ff

er ent mode s of

wors hip shallbe he ld s ac re d. Theri ghts her eby se cur ed s hal l not

be c onstrue d to j ustif

y ac ts of l ic entious nes s injurious to m ora ls or danger s to t he pe ac e and sa fe ty of

thest at e . . . .”Mis s. Const . art . 3, § 18.

12 ¶ 2 0 . S tate s h a v e “ ‘a n o b v io u s a n d leg iti m a te in ter e st in th e p e a c e fu l re so lu tio n o f p ro p e rty d isp u tes , an d in p ro v id in g a c iv il fo ru m w h e re th e o w n e rsh ip [an d co n tro l] o f c h u rc h p ro p e rty can be de t erm i ned conc l us i vel y. ’ ” Churc h of G od Pente c os tal

v. Fre e wil

l Pente c os tal Church of

G od , 716 So. 2d 200, 204 ( M i s s . 1998) ( quot i ng W o lf , 4 4 3 U .S . at 6 0 2 ). A c iv il
cou rt ’s authori ty to r esol ve such dis pu t es, ho w ever, i s sever el y cir cu m scri bed by the F i rs t A m e n d m e n t. Church of G od P entecos tal , 716 So. 2d at204 ( quot i ng W o lf , 44 3 U . S . at 60 2 ). ¶21. T he R el i gi on Cl aus es of the Fi r s tA m endments t at e that : “C ongr es s s hal l m ake no l aw res pecti ng an est ab li shm ent of rel i gion, or prohi bit i ng the fr ee exe rci se thereof. ” T he fi rs t cl aus e, r ef

err ed t o as t he Est abl i s hm entC l ause, has be en hel d t o comm and a s epar at i on of
c h u rc h a n d sta te . C utterv. W il kinson , 544 U . S. 709, 719, 125 S. C t . 2113, 161 L . E d. 2d 1 0 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ); Mor r is on , 905 So. 2d at1224- 25. T he s econd c l aus e, know n as the Fr ee E xer ci s e C l aus e, “r equi r es governm entr es pectfor , and noni nt er f er ence w i th, the r el i gi ous b e lie fs a n d p ra c tic e s o f o u r N a tio n ’s p e o p le .” C utter , 5 4 4 U .S . a t 7 1 9 . 4 ¶2 2 . T h e F irst A m e n d m e n t th u s “ fo rb id s c iv il co u rt s from reso lving ch u rch p ro p e rty d is p u te s b y in q u ir in g in to a n d re s o lv in g d is p u te d iss u e s o f r e lig io u s d o c tr in e a n d p ra c tic e .” Church of

G od P entecos tal , 716 So. 2d at204 ( ci t i ng W o lf , 443 U . S. a t602) . St at es ar e f r ee t o adoptany met hod f

oradj udi cat i ng chur ch p roper ty di s put es , “‘ s o l ong as i ti nvol ves no

### 13

cons i der at i on of

doctr i nal m att er s , w hetherthe r i tual and l i tur gy of w or s hi p orthe t enet s of f ai th. ’ ” Church of

G od P entecos tal , 716 So. 2d at204 ( quot i ng W o lf , 4 4 3 U .S . a t 6 0 2 ). ¶23. M i s s i s s i ppi has adopt ed the “neutr al pr i nci pl es of l aw ” appr oach f or r es ol vi ng chur ch p ro p e rt y d is p u te s . Church of G od P entecos tal , 716 So. 2d at206. T he neutr al
- pr i nci pl es appr oach “ r el i es on obj ect i ve, t r adi t i onal concept s of trus tand prope r ty l aw . . . . ” I d. at205. “I tc al l s ‘ f

orthe compl et el y s ecul are xami nat i on of de eds t o the chur ch pr operty, s t at e s t atut es and exi s t i ng l ocal and gener al chur ch cons t i tut i ons , by-l aw s , canons , B ooks of D i s ci pl i ne and the l i ke . . . . ’ ” I

d . ( quot i ng P r otes tant

Epis copal

Church in D i oces e of

N . J. v. G r aves , 83 N .J . 5 7 2 , 4 1 7 A .2 d 1 9 , 2 3 ( N .J . 1 9 8 0 ), cer t . de ni ed s ub nom . Moor e v. P r otes tant E pis copal Church in D i ocese of N . J. , 4 4 9 U . S . 1 1 3 1 , 6 7 L . E d . 2 d 1 1 9 , 1 0 1 S . C t. 9 5 4 (19 8 1 )). R el i gi ous document s m us tbe c ar ef ul l y s crut i ni zed i n pur el y s ecul art erm s w i thoutr el yi ng on re lig io u s p re c e p ts . Church of G od P entecos tal , 716 So. 2d at205- 06 ( ci t i ng W o lf , 44 3 U. S.
a t 6 0 4 ). I f a d e e d , co rp o ra te c h a rte r, o r re lig io u s d o c u m e n t in c o rp o ra tes re lig io u s c o n c e p ts in it s p ro v isio n s c o n c e rn in g o w n e rsh ip o f th e p ro p e rty , th e co u rt m u st d e fe r to th e a u th o rity
o f th e e c c le s ia s tic a l b o d y so a s to a v o id re s o lv in g a n y re lig io u s c o n tr o v e rs y . W o lf , 44 3 U. S. at604 ( ci t i ng S erbian E astern O rt h odox D i ocese , 4 2 6 U .S . a t 7 0 9 ). ¶24. Pl ai nt i f

f s as s ertthatourcourt s can appl y neutr al pr i nci pl es of trus tl aw t o det erm i ne w hetherthe S t . P aul property i s held i n ei ther an express or a r esul t i ng trust . P l ai nti ff s base th e ir ex p re ss -tru st th e o ry o n the lan g u a g e co n tain e d in v a rio u s d e e d s a ss o c iate d w ith th e S t. P a u l p ro p e rty . T h e se d e e d s w e re d e sc rib e d in a d o c u m e n t at ta c h e d a s “ E x h ib it A ” to Pl ai nt i f f s ’ compl ai nt . T hi s documentw as dr af t ed by Pl ai nt i f

f s , and pr ovi des a sum m ary of th e c h a in s o f titl e fo r th e e ig h t in d iv id u a l p a rc e ls w h ich c o m p rise th e S t. P a u l p ro p e rty . O n ly

### It

is uncl ear whe n St. Paul ’s Churc h was firs t bui lt . Onedocum ent in the rec ord 5 

### states that S t. Pau l Churchwas “estab lished ” in 1 84 7. H olyFamilyParis h ’s web site cont ains a

his tor y of St . Pa

ul Pari sh, which refere nce s a church bui lt

in 1844 by Fathe r Guil lame Labbe, and anothe r c hurc h built in 1850 by Father Antoine Pa

ul Gue rard. Plaintif fs ’ c omplaint states th at Fath er Buteuxcomp leted co nstru ctionof th e orig inal St . Pa ul Churchin 1 85 1, an d th at the churchwas fo rmally d edicatedthat same y ear. Acc ording to Plaintif

fs , But eux di ed inte st at e in 1873, and no wil l ha s be en 6 

### pro batedno r has any intestate estate beenop enedsince th at time. 14 f ourof the actual de eds r ef

er ence d i n thi s s um m ary a r e i ncl uded i n the r ecor d. C hurc h D efe n d an ts do n o t app ea r t o co n testthe a cc u ra c y o f P lai n ti ffs’ sum m ary . In th eir an sw er, C hur ch D ef

endant s s i m pl y s t at ed thatt he dee ds themsel ves w er e the bes tevi dence , and deni ed any a l l egat i ons thatcontr adi ct ed the ac tual t erm s of the deeds . D ue t o the abs ence of any s peci f

i c f actual chal l enge, w e ac ceptPl ai nt i f f s ’ s um m ary as true i n des cr i bi ng the var i ous d e e d s a n d c o n v e y a n c e s b e lo w . See Mor r is on , 9 05 So . 2 d a t1 22 1 ( i n a f a c tua l at t ack,
u n d is p u te d w e ll- p le d fa c tu a l a lle g a tio n s o f a p la in tif f a re a c c e p te d a s tru e ). ¶25 . S t . Pau l ori ginal l y w as es t abli shed as partof the C at ho l i c D ioce se o f N atch ez . In M ar ch 1849, FatherL oui s M ar i e St ani s l aus B ut eux ac qui r ed a pa r cel of r eal pr operty ( Par cel 1 ) in P a ss C h ristia n fo r th e c o n stru c tio n o f a c h u rc h . F a th e r B u teu x c o n v e y e d tw o su b p a rc e ls 5 of thi s prope r ty, P ar cel 1-A and P ar cel 1- B , t o R i ghtR ever end W i l l i am H . E l der , B i s hop of the N at chez D i oces e. Pl ai nt i f f s averthatB ut eux r emai ns t he ow nerof the r emai nderof Par cel 1 , les s P a rc e ls 1 -A , 1 -B , an d a th ird su b p a rc e l th a t B u teu x c o n v e y e d to a n o th e r in d iv id u a l. 6 ¶2 6 . In 1 8 7 1 , R e v . P e ter H o lto n a n d h is w ife M a rg a re t co n v e y e d a p a rc e l o f p ro p e rty (P a rc e l 2 ) to B ish o p E ld e r. B ish o p E ld e r la ter a ss ig n e d /co n v e y e d h is in ter e sts to h is
su c c e ss o r, R ig h t R e v e re n d F ra n c is J a n ss e n s, th ro u g h a n u n re c o rd e d d o c u m e n t. D u rin g h is ten u re , B ish o p Ja n ss e n s w a s d e e d e d a d d iti o n a l p ro p e rty (P a rc e l 3 ) fro m E llen C u rtis, et a l.N one of t he actual deeds conveyi ng P ar cel s 1-A , 1-B, 2, 3, and 4 ar e i n the r ecor d. 7 

### 15 B i s hop J ans s ens eventual l y con veyed Par cel s 1- A , 1- B , 2, and 3 t o hi s s ucce s s or , R i ght R ever end Thom as H es l i n. I n A pr i l 1890, B i s hop H es l i n acqui r ed yetanotherpi ece of p rop erty (P arc el 4). 7 ¶27. O n Sept ember7, 1905, the N at chez D i ocese recei ved it s chart erof i ncorpor at i on. N e a rly o n e y e a r la ter , in a d e e d d a ted M a y 2 1 , 1 9 0 6 , B ish o p H e slin c o n v e y e d a ll th e p ro p e rty thathe hel d “i n trus tf

ors ai d C ongr egat i ons , Par i s hes and M i s s i ons , ” t o the N at chez D i oces e. B i s hop H es l i n c onveyed the pr operty “ i n f ee s i m pl e, a nd a ccor di ng t o the trus t s pr ovi ded f or in th e [N a tch e z D io c e se ] ch a rte r.” T h e N a tch e z D io c e se ch a rte r au th o riz e d th e D io c e se “ to h o ld th e tit les to a ll o f th e p ro p e rty , rea l an d p e rso n a l[, ] be lo n g in g to th e se v e ra l C a th o lic
c o n g re g a tio n s, p a rish e s a n d m iss io n s in th e sta te o f M iss iss ip p i, in tr u st fo r sa id congr egat i on s, p ar i s hes and mi s s i ons r es pect i vel y . . . . ” The chart erf ur therauthor i zed the N at chez D i oces e “t o l eas e, m or t gage ort o s el l and t o deal w i th any pr operty of s ai d s ever al congr egat i ons , par i s hes and mi s s i ons [ i ] n the mannerand upon the condi t i ons pr es cr i bed by the r egul at i ons of

the C athol i c D i oces e of N at chez i n M i s s i s s i ppi , r el at i ng t o and governi ng [ uni dent i f

i abl e mar k] pow erand author i ty of the B i s hop of N at chez i n r es pectt o conveya nce by hi m , by l eas e, m or t gage ors al e of s ai d pr operty. ” ¶2 8. I n s ubs e qu e nty e a r s , v a r i ous i ndi vi dual s and or gani zat i ons conveye d addi t i onal propert y t o S t . Paul . O n D ece m ber5, 1947, W i l f r i da M ar gar etG ack, i ndi vi dual l y and as
e x e c u trix o f th e E sta te o f Ja n e E . H ill, c o n v e y e d c e rta in lan d (P a rc e l 5 ) to th e “ C a th o lic

### Th e ac tu al deedconvey ing Parcel 5 is no t in th e record . Th e qu otedlang uag e is 8 

### taken f rom Plaintif fs ’ s umm ar

y. In Marc h 1957, the Natc hezDioc es e ame nded i ts ch arter of incor porati on and 9 

### changed i ts nam e t o the“Cathol ic Dioc es e of Nat che z- Ja cks on.” Th e actual d eed co nv eyin g P arcel 6 is n ot inthe record. The quo ted lan gu age is 10 

### taken f rom Plaintif fs ’ s umm ar

y. OnFeb ruary19 , 19 86 , ap rop erty h avin g th e exact same d escriptio n as P arcel 7 11 

### was co nv eyedbyO. S . M o ntagn et, Jr., to th e Bish op of th e Bilo xi D iocese an d h is successo rs, in “tru st for th e Cath olic C on g re g at io n an d P arish fo r St. P aul’s C atho lic Church .” Th e actual d eed co nv eyin g P arcel 8 is n ot in the record . The quo ted lan gu age is 12 

### takenfrom P laintiffs’ summary. 16 Di o c e s e o f

Na t c h e z i n t ru s tf

o rS t . P a u l ’ s c o n g r e g a t i o n , i n P a s s Ch r i s t i a n , M i s s i s s i p p i . ” On 8 A pr i l 30, 1962, the St . J os eph A l um ni A s s oci at i on co nv eyed pr operty ( Par cel 6) t o t he C a th o lic D io c e s e o f N a tch e z -Ja c k so n , a s “ T ru ste e fo r S t. P a u l’s C o n g re g a tio n o r P a rish in 9 P a ss C h ristia n .” O n D e c e m b e r 1 5 , 1 9 6 9 , P rie u r Ja m e s L e a ry , S r., co n v e y e d c e rta in p ro p e rty 10 ( Par cel 7) t o t he N at chez
- J acks on D i oces e. Fi nal l y, on Sept ember24, 1970, B etty G . L ut z, 11 etal . , conveyed pr operty ( Par cel 8) t o the N at chez
- J acks on D i oces e “i n T rus tf orthe C o n g re g a tio n o f S t. P a u l’ s C a th o lic C h u rc h , P a s s C h ri s tia n , M is s is s ip p i.” 12 ¶ 2 9 . O n M a rc h 1 , 1 9 7 7 , th e C a th o lic D io c e se o f B ilo x i w a s e sta b lish e d , w h e n it w a s s p lit f r om the C athol i c D i oces e of J acks on ( f

or m er l y the C athol i c D i oces e of N at chez
- J acks on and the C athol i c D i oces e of

N at chez ) . M os tR ever end J os eph L . H ow ze w as appoi nt ed as B i s hop f orthe B i l oxi D i oces e. O n J une 6, 1977, M os tR ever end Joseph B . B runi ni , B i s hop of t he Catho l i c Di oc e s e o f

J a c ks on , c on ve ye d t o Bi s ho p H owze a l l the p r op e r ty w hi ch B i s hop B runi ni hel d “as trus t ee f ora ny pa r i s h orc hur ch i ns t i tut i on” s i tuat ed i n the s event een c ount i es

### 17

w hi ch com pr i s e d the Bi l ox i D i oc e s e . Bi s ho p Brun i ni c on ve ye d thi s pr op e r ty t o Bi s hop H ow ze, “ as trus t ee f

orthe us e and benef

i tof the m ember s of

e ach s uch C athol i c P ari sh or C o n g re g a tio n .” T h at sam e d ay , v ia a se p ara te de ed , all o f th e p rop erty w ith in the n ew ly f or m ed B i l oxi D i oces e w hi ch w as pr evi ous l y ow ned orcl ai m ed by the C athol i c D i oces e of N at chez
- J acks on, w as conveye d t o B i s hop H ow ze, “ as trus t ee f orthe us e and bene f

i tof t he
m ember s of

eac h C athol i c Par i s h orC ongr egat i on” l ocat ed i n the s event een c ount i es . B i s hop H ow ze thus hel d t i t l e t o es s ent i al l y al l C athol i c C hur ch pr operty w i thi n t he B i l oxi D i oces e, w hetherr eal , per s onal , orm i xed, as trus t ee f or any p ar i s h orchur ch l ocat ed w i thi n t he te rr ito ry . ¶ 3 0 . W h e n B ish o p H o w z e re tired , B ish o p R o d i w a s a p p o in ted to b e h is su c c e ss o r. In Ju ly 2 0 0 1 , B ish o p H o w z e d e e d e d h is titl e to B ish o p R o d i as “ T R U S T E E fo r th e u se a n d b e n e fit of the mem ber s of

eac h s uch C athol i c Par i s h orC ongr egat i on i n acc or dance w i th the C ode of C anon l aw of

the R om an C athol i c C hur ch . . . . ” ¶31 . N otabl y, a nu m ber of the ab o v e-refe renced deed s con t ai n l ang uag e thatim pli cat es a tru st re latio n sh ip . U n d e r the n eu tr al-princ iples a p p ro a c h , the in terp re tatio n o f d e e d s a n d tru sts is p re c is e ly th e ty p e o f i n q u ir y th a t is p e rm is s ib le in o u r c o u rt s . Church of G od P entecos tal , 7 1 6 S o . 2 d a t 2 0 6 . N e v e rth e les s, w e fin d su b jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n d o e s n o t ex ist d u e to P la in tif fs ’ l a c k o f s ta n d in g . ¶ 3 2 . S ta n d in g is a n a s p e c t o f s u b je c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n . K irk v. P ope , 973 So. 2d 981, 990 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng Bre e de n v. Ki rkp atr i c k & Loc kha r t LLP( I n r e The Benn e tt

Funding G r o u p , I n c .) , 336 F. 3d 94, 102 ( 2d C i r . 200 3)) . A l ack of s t andi ng “‘ r obs the courtof

### “Col ora ble ,”when us ed t o des cribea c laim or a ction, m eans “a

ppearing t o be true , 13 

### valid , or rig ht.” B lack’s L aw D iction ary 2 12 (abrid ged7thed. 2 00 0). 18 j ur i s di ct i on t o hearthe case . ’ ” P ruit t v. H an cock Med. Ctr. , 94 2 S o. 2d 79 7, 80 1 (M i ss. 2006) ( quot i ng McN

airv. U nited States P os tal

Ser v. , 7 6 8 F . 2 d 7 3 0 , 7 3 7 (5th C ir . 1 9 8 5 )). ¶ 3 3 . “ M is s is s ip p i’ s s ta n d in g re q u ir e m e n ts a re q u ite lib e ra l.” D unn v. Mis s . State D ep't of He a lth , 70 8 S o. 2 d 67 , 7 0 (M i ss. 1 99 8). T he g eneral st and i ng rul e has be en st at ed as fol l ow s:

“‘ M i s s i s s i ppi part i es have s t andi ng t o sue ‘w hen they as s erta col or abl e i nt er es ti n t he 13
s ubj ectm att erof

the l i t i gat i on orexper i ence an adve r s e ef f ectf r om the conduc tof

t he def endant , oras ot herw i s e pr ovi ded by l aw . ’ ” Cit y of P i cayune v. S. R eg'

l Cor p. , 916 So. 2d 510, 525 ( M i s s . 2005) ( quot i ng S ta te o f Mis s . v. Q u itm a n Co u n ty , 80 7 S o. 2d 40 1 (M i ss. 2001) ) . T he “i ndi vi dual ’ s l egal i nt er es tor ent i t l ementt o ass erta cl ai m . . . m us tbe gr ounded i n s om e legal r i ghtr ecogni zed by l aw , w hetherby s t atut e orby comm on l aw . ” Cit y of Pi c ay une , 9 1 6 S o . 2 d a t 5 2 6 . S tate d a n o th e r w a y , sta n d in g is d e ter m in e d b y : [ W ] hethert he par t i cul arpl ai nt i f f had a ri ghtt o j udi ci al enf or cementof

a l egal duty of t he def endantor . . . w hethera par ty pl ai nt i f f i n an act i on f

orl egal r el i ef can s how i n hi m s el f

a pr es ent , e xi s t enta ct i onabl e t i t l e ori nter est , and demonstr at e thatthi s r i ghtw as compl et e atthe t i m e of the i ns t i tut i on of the act i on. I d. ( c i t i ng A m . B ook Co. v. V andi ver , 1 8 1 M iss. 5 1 8 , 5 2 7 , 1 7 8 S o . 5 9 8 , 5 9 9 (19 3 8 )). In Canov ar o v. Bro the rs of The Orde rof

He r m it s of St . Augustine , 326 Pa. 76, 191 A . 140 (1937 ), the S up rem e C ou rtof Pen nsylvani a w as confron t ed w i th a si m i l ar s etof f act s. Can ova ro , 191 A . at140. I n Can ova ro , the A r chbi s hop of the D i oces e of

Phi l adel phi a i s s ued
a d e c re e d is m e m b e ri n g th e P a ri s h o f t h e C h u rc h o f O u r L a d y o f G o o d C o u n s e l. I d. at142- 43. L eg al t it le t o th e ch u rch pro p erty w as h eld in the n am e o f th e B roth ers o f th e O rde r of S t.

### 19

A u g u s tin e . I

d. a t143. For m erc hur ch m ember s , c l ai m i ng t o be a n uni ncorpor at ed as s oci at i on i ndepende ntof

the R om an C athol i c C hur ch, f i l ed s ui t , a l l egi ng thatthe chur ch and sc hool p ro p e rt ie s w e re im p re s s e d w ith a tru s t f o r t h e irb e n e fi t. I

d. A f t erthe l ow ercourtdi s m i s s ed th e ir cla im s, the p lain tiffs c o n c e d e d o n ap p e a l th a t th e y w e re m e m b e rs o f th e R o m a n C a th o lic fa ith . I d. at143- 44. T he Supr eme C our tof P enn s yl vani a r el i ed upon a r ece nt l y enac t ed
s ta tu te to h o ld th a t p la in tif fs h a d n o p ro p e rt y rig h ts in th e c h u rc h p ro p e rt y . I d. at 14 6 -47 . In di ctum l eadi ng t o t he hol di ng, the Canovar o courtf ound that , “ [ u] nderthe contr ol l i ng chur ch l aw . . . appel l ants are n o l ongerm ember s of the par i s h i n w hi ch they s eek t o contr ol t he p ro p e rt y a n d a re w ith o u t s ta n d in g ” to m a in ta in s u it. I d. a t 1 4 6 . T h e c o u rt e x p lain e d th a t: U n d e r th e c h u rc h law th e e ffe c t o f d ism e m b e rm e n t w a s to c a u se th e p a rish to cea s e t o e xi s ta nd t o tr ans f eri t s mem ber s t o a dj oi ni ng pa r i s hes . Ther e w er e no l ongerany mem ber s of

the or i gi nal pa r i s h. The or derof di s m ember m entw as bi nd i ng on t he par i s h m ember s . D i vi s i on, di s m ember m entors uppr es s i on of par i s hes , and t he eff

ectthereof on m em bershi p are pu rel y ecclesi ast i cal m at t ers , depende ntupon t he chur ch l aw as admi ni s t er ed by the appr opr i at e author i t i es a n d tr ib u n a ls . The ef

f ect of the dis m em ber m ent

of the paris h and the tr ans f er o f P la in tif fs' m e m b e rs h ip th e re

fro m to o th e r p a ris h e s w a s to d e p riv e th e m o

f a ll righ ts as m em bers i n the chu rch prop ert y of the p arish f

rom w hich they w ere tr a n s fe r r e d
. C h u rch m em b ersh ip is an ec clesiasti ca l m att er, no t t em p o ral. T h e re is n o p ro p e rty rig h t in m e m b e rsh ip , a n d the re co u ld b e n o p ro p e rty rig h ts in la y m e m b e rs e x c e p t th ro u g h th e irm e m b e rs h ip in th e c o n g re g a tio n . I d. at145 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ( emphasi s added) . Penns yl vani a cou rt s r e pe a t e dl y h ave a f f i r m ed th is p ri n c ip le . P o st v . D o u g h e rty , 326 Pa. 97, 101, 191 A . 151 ( 1937) (s t at i ng i n di ctum t hat

“ [t] h e e ffe c t o f th e su p p re ss io n o f th e p a rish w a s to c a u se th e lay m e m b e rs to lo se th e ir
m e m b e rsh ip th e re in , a n d b e c o m e m e m b e rs o f an o th e r p a rish . H a v in g lo st th e ir m e m b e rsh ip in th e p a rish , the y h a v e n o sta n d in g .”); St . P eter ' s R om an Catholi c Paris h v. U rban Rede v e lop m e nt

Auth. , 394 Pa. 194, 198, 146 A . 2d 724 ( 1958) ( “a mem berof a par i s h has no

### Plaintif fs as se rt that t he St . Pa ul c ongre gation—whi ch they de em to bethetr

ue 14 

### ben eficiary o f the tru st—still ex ists as an id entifiab le ben eficiary. P la in tiffs essentially atte mpt to d istinguis h theSt. Paulcongr egati on from t he St . Pa ul Pari sh by a ss erting that only t he p aris h, not

thecongr egati on, ha s be en e xtinguis hed. We areunper sua ded. The te rm s “paris h” and “c ongre gation”have been found to be e ss entia lly int erchangea ble . J am es A. C orid en, The Paris h in Cat holic Tradition , 19-2 0 (Pau list Press 199 6) (“Fro m the sixth ce nturyo n , h o w ev er, the termin olo gybecame mo re un iform, wi t h loc al congregationscalle d pari shesand the l arger

groupings of

loc alchurche s within a territor y and ove rs ee n by a bish op called d ioceses . . . .”); Wu erl, 66 8 A .2dat 11 53 . Thus, n either th e S t. P aul P arish no r the S t. Pau l con greg ationstill exists. Rather, b othhav e mergedwiththe H olyFamily Paris h, whi ch ha s, in t

urn, as sum ed the extinc t paris h or c ongre gation’ s property, ri ghts , and ob ligatio ns. 20 p rop erty righ t i n h is m em b ersh ip o r an y p rop erty ri g h t i n ch u rch p rop erty sa v e a s a m em b er” ); Croatian R om an Catholic Con grega ti on v. W u erl , 447 Pa. Super . 208, 211, 212, 668 A . 2d 1151, 1152- 53 ( Pa. Super . 1995) ( r el yi ng upon Can ova ro and P ost to precl ud e t he ex erci se o f ju risd ictio n ); s ee al

s o G ali ch v. Catholi c B is hop of Chi cago , 75 I l l . A pp. 3d 538, 546, 394 N . E . 2d 572, 578 ( A pp. Ct . I l l . 1979) ( quot i ng Can ova ro t o d efi ne the extentof pl ai nti ff s’ p ro p e rt y ri g h ts ). ¶34. W e f

i nd Can ova ro and i t s progen y i nst ruct i ve f or this case. T he ext ent of Plai nti ff s’ p ro p e rty o r b e n e fic ial in ter e st in th e S t. P a u l p ro p e rty , if an y , w a s in e x trica b ly tied to th e ir
s t atus as m ember s of

St . Paul C hur ch orPar i s h. B eca us e s uch chur ch orpar i s h no l onger 14 exi s t s , Pl ai nt i f

f s ha ve no s t andi ng t o a s s erta c l ai m f ora ny i nt er es tthey may orm ay nothave h a d in c h u rc h p ro p e rt y . ¶35. W e not e one M i s s i s s i ppi c as e i n w hi ch a l ocal chu rch w i t hin a hi er ar chi cal chur ch
asso ciati o n w as d issolve d b y h ierarch ical au tho rities , an d y et i ts f o rm er m em b ers w ere al l ow ed t o i nt ervene i n s ubs equentl i t i gat i on overthe ow ner s hi p or c ontr ol of chur ch pr operty. S u s ta rv. Wil

lia ms , 263 So. 2d 537, 537- 40 ( M i s s . 1972) . I n Sustar , t he i s s ue of s t andi ng w as

### 21

n e ith e r ra is e d o r d is c u s s e d . Sustar , 263 So . 2d 53 7. T he form er church m em bers i n thatcase i nt ervened unde rtw o s t atut es w hi ch al l ow ed s i xty- s i x- and- tw o- thi r ds per centof the b e n e fic iar ies o f a re lig io u s tru st to ta k e o v e r a n d d iv e st th e m o th e r c h u rc h o f tru st p ro p e rty i f the bene f

i ci ar i es det erm i ned t hat t here e xi s t ed “a deep- s eat ed and i rr econc i l abl e” d isa g re e m e n t. I

d. at 53 9 -43 (cit ing M iss. C o d e A n n . § § 1 2 7 3 -01 , 1 2 7 3 -02 (S u p p . 1 9 7 1 )). T h e s e s ta tu te s , h o w e v e r, w e re d e e m e d u n c o n s titu tio n a l, a n d th e c a s e w a s re m a n d e d . I d. at 5 4 3 . It i s u n c lea r w h e th e r th e fo rm e r c h u rc h m e m b e rs w e re p e rm itt e d to re m a in in th e su it
o n re m a n d , a n d , if s o , o n w h a t g ro u n d s . See id. B eca us e of i t s uni que f

act s , w e f

i nd Sustar d is tin g u is h a b le . ¶36 . P l ai nti ff

s al t ernat i vely sugg est that the S t . P aul property i s subject t o a res ult i ng t rust fo r th e ir b e n e fit b e c a u se so m e o f th e m d o n a ted m o n e y to p u rc h a se c e rta in p a rc e ls a n d to b u ild the curr entchur ch. Y et , donor s w ho m ake gi f t s f ora s peci f

i c purpos e, orw ho m ake ge ner al contr i but i ons w i th the i nt entt o benef i tonl y a ce r t ai n par i s h, do notacqui r e any be nef i ci al or o w n e rs h ip in te re s t in th e a s s e ts a c q u ir e d b y th e c h u rc h . Com m itte e of Tor t Liti ga nt s v. The Catholi c D i oces e of

Spokane (

I n r e T he Catholi c B is hop of

Spokane) , 329 B . R . 304, 329- 30 ( B ankr . E . D . W as h. 2005) . Pl ai nt i f f s thus ha ve no l egal l y e nf or cea bl e i nt er es ti n the St . Paul p ro p e rt y , a n d la c k s ta n d in g to a s s e rt a re s u ltin g tru s t, a s w e ll. ¶37 . W e fi nd that P l ai nti ff s l ack st and i ng t o assert that the S t . P aul property i s held i n trust f ort heirb enef

i t . A ccor di ngl y, w e af f i r m the cha ncel l or ’ s f

i ndi ng thats ubj ectm att er ju ri s d ic tio n d o e s n o t e x is t o v e r t h is p a rt ic u la r c la im .

### As previ ously s tate d, Pl ainti ff s a ls o cl ai m t

hat Churc h Def

endants hold in tr

ust the 15 

### ins uranceproc ee ds s te mm ing f rom thedama ge ca

use d by Hurric aneKatrina . Thi s partic ular is sueis not f

ully deve lope d in t

he briefs, and no a

uthorit y is ci te d for

suc h propos ition. Presumably , Plaintiffs seek to impose a cons tr uctiv e trust o n th e insurance p roceed s. McN eil v. Hest er , 75 3 S o. 2 d 1 05 7, 1 06 4 (M iss. 20 00 ) (“A co nstru ctive tru st is a fictionof equity created fo r th e p urp o se of p reventingun just enrichment byon e wh o h old s legal title to prope rty which, under

principle s of

jus ti ceand f

airne ss , right ful ly be longs to anothe r. ”) (c iting All good v. All

good, 473 So. 2d 416 ( Mis s. 1985)) . Wefind no bas is for im posing a con structiv e trust o n any in suran ce pro ceeds inthis case. 22 B. W he t he r s ubj e c t m at t e r j ur i s di c t i on e xi s t s t o de t e r m i ne i f dona t i ons m ade fo r t h e s p e c ific p u r p o se o f r e b u ild in g th e S t. P a u l C h u r c h a r e h e ld in tru st. 15 ¶38. Pl ai nt i f

f s s ubm i t that C hur ch D ef endant s hol d any donat i ons m ade f or the purpos e of
r ebui l di ng the St . Paul C hu rch i n t rus t . T hey ar gue thatthes e f unds w er e gi ven bas ed on C hur ch D ef

endant s ’ pr om i s e t o r ebui l d the chur ch, and t hatt he f unds m ay notbe us ed f

orany o th e r p u rp o se . T h e y a ss e rt th a t C h u rc h D e fe n d a n ts b re a c h e d th e ir fid u c iar y d u ties b y m e re ly cont act i ng donor s f

orperm i s s i on t o us e the donor s ’ contr i but i ons t ow ar d a di f f er entpurpos e. Pl ai nt i f f s thus s eek t o enj oi n the di ver s i on of the f unds , and r eques tan ad j ud i cat i on of
w hetherC hu rch D efendan t s’ d ec isi on s have b een fi scal l y irres po nsi ble, and w hethert ho se fu n d s m u s t b e u s e d in a m a n n e r m u tu a lly a g re e a b le to th e m o r i n th e irb e s t in te re s t. ¶39. T he cha ncell or dis m i ssed t hese p art i cularclai m s based on an opi ni on f r om the S u p re m e C o u rt o f N o rt h C a ro lin a . Harr is v. Ma tth e ws , 6 4 3 S .E .2 d 5 6 6 (N .C . 2 0 0 7 ). H a rr is sta tes th a t: D eterm ining w h ethe r ac ti o n s, inclu d ing ex p en d itu res , b y a c h u rch ’s F athe r, s ecr et ary, and cha i r m an of the B oar d of

T rus t ees w er e pr operr equi r es an exam i nat i on of

the chur ch’ s vi ew of

the r ol e of

the Father , s t af

f , and chur ch l eaders, theirauthori ty an d co m pen sat i on , and chu rch m anag em ent. B ecause a chur ch’ s r el i gi ous doctr i ne and pr act i ce a f f ecti t s under st and i ng of eac h of thes e conc ept s , s eeki ng a court ’ s r evi ew of the mat t ers p res ent ed her e i s no

### 23

di f f er entthan as ki ng a c our tt o de t erm i ne w hethera pa r t i cul arc hur ch’ s gr ounds for m e m b e rsh ip are sp ir itu all y o r do ctri n all y co rrect or w h ethe r a c h u rch ’s char i t abl e pur s ui t s accor d w i th t he congr egat i on’ s bel i ef s . N one of

thes e i s s ues c a n b e a d d r e s s e d u s i n g n e u tr a l p r i n c i p l e s o f l a w. I d. a t 5 7 1 . ¶40. G ener al l y, ci vi l court s m ay not s econd- gues s chu rch adm i nis tr at i ve orm anage m ent d e c is io n s , o r s u b s titu te th e irju d g m e n t in p la c e o f t h e c h u rc h ’s . See id. ; buts ee B ible W ay Church of

O ur Lord Je s us Ch r is t

of the A pos tolic Faith of

W as hington, D . C

. v. B ear ds , 680 A . 2d 419, 428 ( D . C . 1996) ( s t at i ng thati f a chur ch has adopt ed cl ear , obj ect i ve ac count i ng a n d re p o rtin g sta n d a rd s th a t d o n o t im p lica te d o c trin a l d e c isio n -m a k in g in th e ir e n fo rc e m e n t, then ar guabl y a ci vi l courtcan appl y them). W e f i nd thatthe chanc el l orcorr ect l y det erm i ned thatourcourt s may notc ons i derw hetherChurc h D ef endant s ’ managementoradmi ni s t r at i ve deci s i ons w er e f

i s cal l y i r r es pons i bl e, orw hetherthos e dec i s i ons w er e i n the bes ti nt er es t s of p a rish io n e rs. B u t, fo r th e re a so n s s e t fo rth b e lo w , w e fin d th a t th e c h a n c e llo r e rre d in dis m i ssi ng P l ai nti ff

s’ cl ai m (s ) that C hu rch D efendan t s i m properl y d i vert ed d esi gn at ed fund s. ¶4 1. W hi l e chur ches have l ar ge, al m os t - unf et t er ed di s cr et i on i n the i r a dmi ni s t r at i ve d e c isio n -m a k in g , the y a re n o t en tit led to v io late r e c o g n ize d d u ties o r sta n d a rd s o f c o n d u c t. See Mor r is on , 9 0 5 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 4 2 . Mor r is on rec o g n izes a ch u rch o r reli g iou s o rga n izati o n ’s pot ent i al l i abi l i ty f

ordi vert i ng funds w hi ch have bee n s ol i ci t ed and a cce pt ed f ora part i cul ar p u rp o s e , to w a rd a n u n a u th o ri z e d p u rp o s e . See id. I n Mor r is on , i n di ctum , thi s C our ts t at ed th a t: [ E ] ach ca use of act i on ass ert ed againsta rel i gious organizat i on cl ai m i ng F i rs t A m endmentpr ot ect i on, m us tbe e val uat ed acc or di ng t o i t s part i cul arf act s . For i ns t ance , w i th r es pectt o a cl ai m of br eac h of f

i duci ary duty, a r el i gi ous o rg a n iza tio n m ig h t en

jo y F irst A m e n d m e n t pr o tec tio n fro m cla im s o f fa ilu re to

### 24

pr ovi de a cert ai n quant i ty orqual i ty of r el i gi ous i ns truct i on i n excha nge f or tith e s a n d o ff

e ri n g s , b u t m ig h t n o t en jo y su c h p ro tec tio n fro m c la im s th a t it s ol i ci t ed and acc ept ed f un ds to be he ld i n tr us tf ora s peci f i c, s tat ed pur

pos e, b u t s p e n t th e fu n d

s fo ra n u n a u th o r iz e d

p u r p o s e . I d. (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). ¶ 4 2 . T h e g e n e ra l law o f c o n tr ib u tio n s h a s b e e n sta ted to b e : “W h e re a re lig io u s so c iety
r ai s es a f und by s ubs cr i pt i on f

ora part i cul arpurpos e, i tcannotdi vertthe f unds t o another p u rp o s e , a n d , if

it a b a n d o n s s u c h p u rp o s e , th e d o n o rs m a y r e c la im th e irc o n tr ib u tio n s .” Colum bus Cm t

y. Hos p. , I nc . v. Cali

f ano , 614 F. 2d 181, 187 ( 8th C i r . 1980) ( quot i ng B arker
v. T he W ar dens & V

es tr ym en of St . B ar nabas Ch urc h , 176 N eb. 327, 337, 126 N . W . 2d 170, 1 7 7 (1 9 6 4 )); D unaw ay v. Firs t P r es byter ian Church , 103 A r i z. 349, 442 P. 2d 93, 95 ( A r i z. 1 9 6 8 ). T h is p rin c ip le c o m p o rts w ith c a n o n law sta n d a rd s. C h u rc h D e fe n d a n ts r e a d ily ackn ow l edg e t hat, un der cano n law , “[ o] ff eri ng s gi ven by the fa ith ful for a cert ai n p urpose can be appl i ed onl y f

orthatpurpos e, ” and m ay notbe us ed f orany otherpurpos e w i thoutt he d o n o r’s c o n se n t. (q u o tin g C a n o n 1 2 6 7 § 3 ); s ee al s o 1 W i l l i am W . Bass et t , R el i gi ous O rg a n iz a tio n s a n d th e L a w § 5 :3 4 (1 9 9 7 ). ¶43. I n B arker , S t. B a rn a b a s C h u r c h a b a n d o n e d i ts n e w b u ild in g p roje c t. B arker , 126 N . W . 2d a t1 72 . The e xe c ut oro f a n e s t a t e f

i l e d s ui ta ga i ns tthe W a r de ns a nd V es t r ym en of St . B arnabas C hur ch t o r ecove r$1, 000 thatpl ai nt i f f’ s dece denthad gi ven t o the “St . B arnabas C hur ch N ew B ui l di ng Fund. ” I d. T he dec edenthad s i gned a pl edge c ar d w hi ch del i neat ed th e p u rp o s e a n d th e a m o u n t o f t h e c o n tr ib u tio n . I d. at173. T he Supr eme C our tof N ebr as ka fo u n d th a t t h e e x e c u to r h a d a v iab le le g a l cla im w h e re (1 ) m o n e y w a s p led g e d a n d p a id pur s uantt o a f

und- r ai s i ng dr i ve t o bui l d a new church; ( 2) the pl an w as abandone d and the

### The Nebraska Suprem e Cour t c harac te ri ze d theplaintif f’ s c laim as an a ction f

or 16 

### mon ey h ad an d receiv ed , rather th an fo r breachof fiduciaryduty. Barker , 126 N. W.2d at 17 5. 25 f unds w er e di vert ed f

ora di f f er entpurpos e; ( 3) the pl ai nt i f f demanded thatthe contr i but i on be r eturned; and ( 4) the chur ch r ef us ed t o r ef

und the pl ai nt i f

f’ s donat i on. I

d. a t 1 7 7 . 16 ¶4 4 . W e fin d th a t su bjec t m a tter ju risd iction ex ist s o v er a claim that a re li g iou s en ti ty br eac hed a f

i duci ary duty by i m pr oper l y di vert i ng des i gnat ed f unds . I n or dert o es t abl i s h a vi abl e cl ai m , a pl ai nt i f

f mustpr ove ce r t ai n f

act s . B oth Mor r is on and B arkerr equi r e thatt he fu n d s b e so lic ite d b y th e c h u rc h . See id. ; Mor r is on , 905 So. 2d at1242. T he donorm us tt hen p le d g e h is o r h e r c o n tr ib u tio n fo r t h e s o lic ite d p u rp o s e . See B arker , 126 N . W . 2d at177; Mor r is on , 9 0 5 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 4 2 . ¶45. W e do noti n a ny w ay s uggestt hat C hu rch D efendan t s have imprope r l y di vert ed des i gnat ed f

unds . T he onl y i s s ue bef or e us i s w hetherourcourt s m ay exe r ci s e s ubj ectm att er j uri sdi ct i on ov er s uch cl ai m s. W e si m ply fi nd thata rel i gious ent i ty is no texem pt f rom t hese ty p e s o f s u its in a c o u rt o f l a w . C . W het her our co u rts m a y exerc i se subje ct m at t er j uri s di ct i on over P l ai nt i f f s ’ i nt ent i onal - m i s repre s ent at i on cl ai m agai nst F at her C arver . ¶46. Pl ai nt i f

f s al l ege that Father C arver m ade i nt ent i onal m i s r epr es ent at i ons i n s ol i ci t i ng contr i but i ons f

ort he r ebui l di ng of

St . Paul . T he crux of

Pl ai nt i f f s ’ al l egat i on i s thatFat her C arv er k n ew tha t th e S t. P au l ch u rch w o u ld b e c lose d , b u t con ti n u ed tel li n g p o tential d o n o rs th a t th e c h u rc h w o u ld b e re b u ilt. ¶47. T he cl oak of

r el i gi on doe s nots hi el d r el i gi ous i ns t i tut i ons f r om ci vi l r es pons i bi l i ty f or fr a u d . Mor r is on , 905 So. 2d at1237 ( quot i ng G e n. Council on Fin. And A dm in. of the

### 26

U n ited Meth odist

Ch u rch v. Su

peri or Cou rt , 439 U . S. 1355, 1372- 73, 99 S. C t . 35, 58 L . E d. 2 d 6 3 (1 9 7 8 )); see al

so U . S. v. R as heed , 66 3 F . 2d 8 43 , 84 7 (9t h C i r. 19 81 ) ( the F i rs t A m endmentdoes notpr ot ectf r audul entact i vi ty per f

or m ed i n t he nam e of

r el i gi on) ( ci t i ng Cantwel l v. Connec ti c ut , 3 1 0 U .S . 2 9 6 , 3 0 6 , 6 0 S . C t. 9 0 0 , 9 0 4 , 8 4 L . E d . 1 2 1 3 (19 4 0 )). M or eover , the Fi r s tA m endmentdoe s notpr ot ectf r audul ents t at ement s thatconce rn nei ther
re lig io u s d o c tr in e n o r p ra c tic e . B a s s e tt, R e lig io u s O r g a n iz a ti o n s a n d th e L a w § 8 :5 , n .1 ( 1997) ( ci t i ng V

an Schai ck v. Church of Scientology , 5 3 5 F . S u p p . 1 1 2 5 (D . M ass. 19 8 2 ); Chri s tof f ers on v. Church of

Scientology , 5 7 O r. A p p . 2 0 3 , 6 4 4 P . 2 d 5 7 7 (19 8 2 )); T ilton v. Ma rs h a ll , 9 2 5 S .W .2 d 6 7 2 , 6 7 8 -8 0 (T e x . 1 9 9 6 ). ¶48. Pl ai nt i f

f s her e as s erta comm on- l aw t or tw hi ch can be deci ded on neutr al pr i nci pl es of l aw w i thoutexce s s i ve ent angl ementi n ecc l es i as t i cal af f ai r s . I nt ent i onal orfr aud ul ent
m i sr epresent at i on requi res : ( 1 ) a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , ( 2 ) i t s f a l s i ty , ( 3 ) i t s m a t e r i a l i ty , ( 4 ) th e s p e a k e r 's know l edge of

i t s f al s i ty ori gnor ance of

i t s truth, ( 5) hi s i nt entthati ts houl d be act ed on by the hea r erand i n the mannerr eas onabl y cont empl at ed, ( 6) the h e a re r' s ig n o ra n c e o f its fa lsity , (7 ) h is r e lian c e o n its tru th , (8 ) h is r ig h t to re ly th e re o n , a n d (9 ) h is c o n s e q u e n t a n d p ro x im a te in ju ry . McCor d v. Heal

thcar e R ecov er ies, I

nc. , 960 So. 2d 399, 406 ( M i s s . 2007) ( quot i ng Fra n k lin
v. L ovitt E qui p. Co. , I nc. , 4 2 0 S o . 2 d 1 3 7 0 , 1 3 7 3 (M is s . 1 9 8 2 )) . ¶4 9. I n Maff

eiv. R om an C atholi c A r chbis hop of B os ton , 44 9 M a s s . 23 5 ( 20 07 ) , t he Supr eme Judi ci al C ourtof M assachuset t s ass ert ed j ur i s di ct i on overcl ai m s thatthe A r chbi s hop
a n d cle rg y m e m b e rs h a d m isre p re se n ted ce rta in fac ts a s th e y so licite d g ifts. Maf f ei , 449 M a ss . at 2 5 1 , 2 5 5 -5 6 . O n e g ro u p o f p lain tiffs a ss e rte d th a t th e y h a d tra n sfe rre d p ro p e rty to the ar chbi s hop bas ed on a pr i es t ’ s or al r epr es ent at i on thatthe pr operty w oul d “f oreve r ” be

### 27

u s e d a s a c h u rc h . I

d. a t 2 5 1 . W h e n th e c h u rc h w a s c lo se d y e a rs la ter , p lain tiffs file d su it
re q u e s tin g , in p a rt , th e im p o s itio n o f a c o n s tru c tiv e tru s t b a s e d o n fr a u d . I d. at236, 251. T he Maf f eic o u rt c o n sid e re d p lain tiffs’ c laim u n d e r n e u tra l pr in c ip les o f la w , b u t fo u n d th e c laim to b e w ith o u t m e ri t. I d. at251- 52. A nother pl ai nt i f f as s ert ed a c l ai m of

negl i gent
m is re p re s e n ta tio n a g a in s t th e a r c h b is h o p a n d a c e rt a in p ri e s t. I d. at255- 56. Si m i l art o t he t o the ca s e bef

or e us , the pl ai nt i f

f al l eged thatthe A r chbi shop an d pri es thad s ol i ci t ed donat i ons t o s us t ai n the chur ch’ s f utur e exi s t ence , w hi l e h aving know l edge thatthe chur ch
w o u ld s o o n b e c lo s e d . I d. a t25 5- 56 . The Maf

f eic o u r tc o n s i d e r e d th e me r i t s o f th e c l a i m, b u t f o u n d n o s u p p o rt in g e v id e n c e . I d. a t 2 5 6 . ¶50. W e f

i nd t hat subj ect m at t er j uri sdi ct i on exi s t s overPl ai nt i f f s ’ cl ai m of i nt ent i onal
m i sr epres ent at i on; ther ef or e, w e r ever s e the cha ncel l or , and r emand t hi s i s s ue f orf ur ther pr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th t hi s opi ni on. B y doi ng s o, w e do nots ugges tthatFatherC arver di d, i n f act , actfr audul ent l y. B ut“‘ [ w ] hen cons i der i ng a m ot i on t o di s m i s s , the al l egat i ons t aken i n the compl ai ntm us tbe t aken a s true . . . . ’ ” Scag gs v. GP C

H - GP , I nc. , 931 So. 2d 1274, 1275 ( M i s s . 2006) ( quot i ng L a n gv. B a y S t. L o u is/W

a v e la n d S c h . D ist. , 764 So. 2d 1 2 3 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 )). I I . W h e th e r th e c h a n c e llo r e r r e d in fa ilin g to s tr ik e B is h o p R o d i’ s a ff id a v it . ¶ 5 1 . A lo w e r c o u rt’s d e c isio n to g ra n t o r d e n y a m o tio n to s trik e a n a ffid a v it is s u b jec t to
a n a b u s e -o f- d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd o f r e v ie w . B uchanan v. A m er is tarCas ino V i cks burg, I

nc. , 9 5 7 S o . 2 d 9 6 9 , 9 7 2 -7 5 (M is s . 2 0 0 7 ).

### 28

¶52. Pl ai nt i f

f s al l ege thatB i shop R od i ’s af f i davi tw as i rr el evantt o the i s s ues bef or e the l ow erc our t , a nd thati ts houl d ha ve been s tr i cken. T hey ar gue thatthe af f i davi tdi d not hi ng to c h a lle n g e th e fa c tu a l a lle g a tio n s in th e P la in tif fs ’ c o m p la in t. ¶53 . W e fi nd thatthe ch ancell or did n ot abuse his d i scr et i on in fail ing to g rant Pl ai nti ff s’
m o tio n to strik e . T h e c h a n c e llo r d id sta te th a t B ish o p R o d i’s a ffid a v it w a s la d e n w ith “conc l us ory al l egat i on s, ” and t hati tof f er ed “l i m i t ed pr obat i ve val ue. ” N everthel es s , t he affidav itw as n o t w h o ll y w ith o u t v alue or releva n ce . T h e affida v itsou g h t to clari fy th e n ature o f th e c a se b y r e fe re n c in g a p p lica b le p ro v isio n s o f c a n o n law . Its p u rp o se w a s n o t to chal l enge Pl ai nt i f

f s ’ f actual c l ai m s , butt o s how thatthe cha ncery courtl acke d s ubj ectm att er ju ri s d ic tio n to h e a r P la in tif fs ’ c a s e . CO NC L US I ON ¶54. W e af

f i r m the chanc el l or ’ s f

i ndi ng that s ubj ect m att er j ur i s di ct i on does not exi s tover Pl ai nt i f f s ’ cl ai m thatthe S t . Paul pr operty i s hel d i n trus t . L i kew i s e, w e af f i r m t he chanc el l or ’ s deci si on n ot t o s tr i ke B i s hop R odi ’ s af f i davi t . W e r ever s e, how ever , t he chanc el l or ’ s di s m i s s al o f Pl ai nt i f f s ’ br eac h- of

- f i duci ary- duty cl ai m f

orthe di ver s i on of d esig n ated fun d s, a s w ell a s the irinten ti o n al-m isr ep rese n tat ion claim ag ains t Fa ther C arv er. W e r emand t hes e tw o cl ai m s f orf ur therpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on. O n r emand, th e c h a n c e llo r re tain s th e d isc re tio n to o rd e r a n a c c o u n tin g , co n tin g e n t u p o n th e fa c ts p re s e n te d . See Mis s . I

ns. G uar. Ass '

n v. Mis s . Cas. I

ns. Co. , 9 47 S o. 2 d 86 5, 8 76 -77 (M i ss. 2006) (c ha nc e l l or ’ s de c i s i on t o g r a ntorde ny a r e qu e s tf ora n a c c ou nt i ng i s s ub j e c tt o a n a b u se -o f-d isc re tio n sta n d a rd o f re v iew ); R E / Max Real

Est ate Part ners . , I nc. v. L indsley , 840 S o . 2 d 7 0 9 , 7 1 2 ( M i s s . 2 0 0 3 ) ( T o b e e n t i t l e d t o a n e q u i t a b l e a c c o u n t i n g , a p a r ty m u s ts h o w:

### 29

“( 1) the nee d of

di s covery, ( 2) the compl i cat ed char act erof the acc ount s , a nd ( 3) the exi s t ence of a fi duci ary ortrus tr el at i on. ”) ( ci t i ng Henr y v. D onovan , 148 M i s s . 278, 114 So. 482, 484 (1 9 2 7 )) . ¶ 5 5 . AFF I RM ED I N PART; REVERSED AND REM AND ED I N PART. CARL S ON, P. J . , DI CKI NS ON, LA M AR, KI TC HENS , CHANDL ER AND PI ERC E, J J . , CO NCU R. RAN DO LPH, J . , CO NCU RS I N PART AND I N RESULT W I T H SE P A R A T E W R I T T E N O P I N I O N JO I N E D I N P A R T B Y P I E R C E , J. G R A V E S , P .J ., N O T P A R T I C I P A T I N G . RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, CO NCU RRI NG I N PART AND I N RESULT: ¶56. I concur w i th the M aj or i ty’ s r es ul t , but not w i th the f i ndi ng that the pl ai nt i f

f s ’ l ack of sta n d in g p ro h ib its th is C o u rt fro m e x e rc isin g su b jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n . I co n c lu d e th a t th is C o u rt ’s in q u ir y in to w h e th e r th e S t. P a u l p ro p e rt y is h e ld in tru s t, v e l n o n , is c o n stitu tio n a lly pr ohi bi t ed. O urf

or ef ather s c ondemned suc h an exe r ci s e vi a the Fr ee Exer ci s e C l aus e of the F ir s t A m e n d m e n t. See U . S. C ons t . amend. I . T hatclause cl ear l y pr ecl udes governm ent al i ntrus i on i nt o eccl es i as t i cal di s put es . T he appr opr i at e f orum forre s ol ut i on of s uch di s put es is a n e c c les ias tica l co u rt, th u s, n o a p p e a l sh o u ld lie in a se c u lar c o u rt. A s th is d isp u te is b e tw e e n v a rio u s p a ri s h io n e rs a n d th e C a th o lic D io c e se o f B ilo x i, In c ., th e a p p ro p ria te j ur i s di ct i onal venue l i es in the R om an C athol i c C hur ch’ s ecc l es i as t i cal tr i bunal s , w hi ch
a lre a d y h a v e ru led a d v e rse ly to th e p a rish io n e rs’ cla im s. A p p e a l of tha t ve rd ict th e n re sts w ith the B i s hop of

R om e, the Pope, then ul t i m at el y t o the “C r eat or ” w hom ourf or ef ather s r ef err ed t o as “the Supr eme Judge of the w or l d. ” See D ecl ar at i on of I ndepende nce ¶32.

### 30

¶5 7 . I co n cu r w ith S ec ti o n B o f the M ajority O p inion , w h ich fi n d s that the ch an ce ry c o u rt does have s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on ove ra c l ai m f orbr eac h of

f i duci ary duty r egar di ng an al l eged di ver s i on of

m oni es des i gnat ed f

ora part i cul arpurpos e. PI ERCE, J . , J OI NS T HI S OPI NI ON I N PART.