DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD OF THE SOUTHERN FLORIDA

DISTRICT, CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE, INC., and BRIAN WILSON,

Appellants,

v.

CENTRO DE ALABANZA OASIS WEST PALM BEACH, INC., and

IGLESIA DEL NAZARENO BELEN, INC.,

Appellees.

No. 4D21-756

[May 25, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; John S. Kastrenakes, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2016-CA011985-XXXX-MB.

Dane E. Leitner of Ward Damon PL, West Palm Beach, for appellants.

Elaine Johnson James of Elaine Johnson James, P.A., Palm Beach 

Gardens, for appellees.

CONNER, C.J.

Appellants, District Advisory Board of the Southern Florida District, 

Church of the Nazerene, Inc. (“the District”) and Brian Wilson (collectively 

“Appellants”), appeal the final summary judgment entered below in favor 

of appellees, Centro De Alabanza Oasis West Palm Beach, Inc. (“Oasis,

Inc.”) and Iglesia Del Nazareno Belen, Inc. (“Iglesia, Inc.”) (collectively 

“Appellees”). This dispute concerns ownership of real property operating 

a church. Appellants contend that pursuant to the “ecclesiastical 

abstention doctrine,” a lay court cannot adjudicate who, within a church, 

is authorized to run that church. Appellants further contend that to 

resolve the dispute of ownership of real property in this case, a court would 

necessarily need to decide which faction within the church controls the 

church. Because we determine a genuine issue of material fact exists as 

to Iglesia, Inc.’s affiliation with the Church of the Nazarene, and thereby, 

the District, summary judgment was inappropriate and we reverse.

Background
2

Throughout this litigation, the parties presented opposing views of their 

relationship. According to Appellants, the District is an entity created by 

the General Assembly of the Church of the Nazarene (“the Church of the 

Nazarene”) and is made up of interdependent local churches in the South 

Florida area. Appellants contended that appellee, Iglesia, Inc. is one such 

interdependent local church under the umbrella of the District and the 

Church of the Nazarene, and that the subject property dispute was 

ecclesiastic in nature. However, Appellees maintained that this was not a 

dispute between a parent church and a local church. Instead, Appellees 

asserted that Iglesia, Inc. is not a local church, but simply a Florida nonprofit organization and a separate entity altogether.

Galo E. Poveda was ordained as a minister by the Church of the 

Nazarene, and founded the Iglesia Church, serving as its pastor. In 1995, 

Poveda formed Iglesia, Inc. and served as its president and director, with 

his daughter, Roxana Poveda-Mendoza, also serving as a director of the 

company. The summary judgment evidence below reflected that the 

bylaws of Iglesia, Inc. were the Manual of the Church of the Nazarene (“the 

Manual”), which is the governing document of the Church of the Nazarene.

In 2003, Iglesia, Inc. sought to purchase real property in West Palm Beach 

but could not qualify for a mortgage, so the District agreed to co-sign for 

the mortgage. Title to the subject property was then conveyed to the 

District at the sale closing.

By 2007, the District had been assessed over one million dollars in fines 

for municipal code violations on the property. The District then recorded 

a warranty deed transferring title and fee simple ownership of the property 

to Iglesia, Inc. Notably, the warranty deed’s language contained no 

restrictions or reversionary rights in favor of the District, and simply 

conveyed title to the property to Iglesia, Inc. in fee simple. Shortly 

thereafter, the District’s lawyer wrote a letter to the city of West Palm 

Beach seeking an extension of time for Iglesia, Inc. to obtain funds in order 

to bring the property up to code and stating that title had just been 

transferred to Iglesia, Inc.

In 2014, Iglesia, Inc. resolved to withdraw from the Church of the

Nazarene, formalizing a corporate resolution stating that Iglesia, Inc. 

would take all necessary action required by the Manual to withdraw from 

the Church of the Nazarene. Specifically, the corporate resolution 

provided that at a meeting of Iglesia, Inc.’s corporate directors, the 

following action was authorized:
3

TO TAKE ALL NECESSARY ACTION REQUIRED BY THE 

MANUAL OF THE CHURCH OF [THE] NAZARENE TO 

WITHDRAW IGLESIA DEL NAZARENO BELEN, INC. FROM 

THE CHURCH OF [THE] NAZARENE INCLUDING, THE 

EXECUTION OF ALL DOCUMENTS AND MEET ALL 

REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE 

WITHDRAWAL.

(emphasis added).

Thereafter, the District voted to declare Iglesia, Inc. as a “church in 

crisis” per the Manual, to remove the names of the local church board 

members as the corporate officers and appoint replacement persons as the 

local church’s governing board, and to transfer the subject property to the 

District from Iglesia, Inc. As such, Wilson, the then president of the 

District, filed an annual report on behalf of Iglesia, Inc. identifying himself 

as the president of Iglesia, Inc. and also listing the newly appointed 

individuals as officers and directors of Iglesia, Inc. In October 2015, 

Wilson signed and recorded a warranty deed in his capacity as the 

president of Iglesia, Inc., which purported to transfer ownership and title 

to the subject property back from Iglesia, Inc. to the District (“the October 

2015 Warranty Deed”).

After discovering Wilson’s annual report filing, Poveda filed an 

amendment to Iglesia, Inc.’s articles of incorporation, deleting all 

references to the persons listed therein. On behalf of Iglesia, Inc., Poveda 

then attempted to quitclaim the property to another entity, Oasis, Inc., for

which Poveda also served as president since its incorporation in 2014. 

Subsequently, additional competing annual reports were filed purportedly 

on behalf of Iglesia, Inc. in which Wilson again claimed to be the president 

thereof, while Poveda deleted Wilson and his cohorts as officers and 

directors of Iglesia, Inc. 

The Litigation

Appellees filed suit in 2016 against the District and Wilson, alleging 

they fraudulently filed the October 2015 Warranty Deed and annual 

reports in violation of section 817.535, Florida Statutes (2021). Appellees 

sought to quiet title to the subject property against the District asserting 

that Iglesia, Inc. acquired fee simple ownership and title to the subject 

property in 2007 from the District and that Wilson was never authorized 

to act on Iglesia, Inc.’s behalf, such that the October 2015 Warranty Deed 

he signed and recorded was fraudulent and clouded Iglesia, Inc.’s title to 

the property.
4

In response, Appellants asserted that the subject dispute related to 

ownership of church property such that the dispute was purely ecclesiastic

in nature and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the 

religious matter. Appellants also brought their own counterclaim for quiet 

title, asserting the District was duty-bound to protect all District and 

church property from being diverted to any personal or corporate use other 

than for the church and to certify the withdrawal of any local church from 

the Church of the Nazarene for the purpose of implementing the transfer 

of title to real property.

The parties eventually filed competing motions for summary judgment, 

asserting the same positions taken in the complaint and answer.

At the summary judgment hearing, the parties disputed whether the 

Church of the Nazarene was a hierarchical church such as to enable it to 

invoke the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. Notably, the trial court 

acknowledged that if resolving the case required it to interpret provisions

of the Manual, then that would not be an appropriate matter for the court 

to decide because that is something that would be reserved to the church. 

Specifically, the trial court acknowledged that the issue of what occurred 

when the church was declared to be “in crisis,” and how the board was 

overtaken, presented circumstances very similar to cases in which the 

courts do not get involved, as such cases appear to relate to internal 

decisions dealing with subordinate churches.

However, the trial court reasoned that in this case, whether the church 

was hierarchical or congressional was not relevant to the ruling on the 

competing summary judgment motions. Rather, the trial court stated that 

it had not considered the Manual’s provisions, and instead had based its 

judgment on the application of neutral principles of Florida real estate and 

corporate law to real estate transactions between two non-profit Florida 

corporations. In doing so, the trial court ruled in favor of Appellees, 

concluding that the District and its president, Wilson, were not members, 

directors, or officers of Iglesia, Inc. and were unauthorized to transfer title 

from Iglesia, Inc. back to the District, such that the October 2015 

Warranty Deed was materially false, unauthorized, null and void.

Subsequently, Appellants gave notice of appeal.

Appellate Analysis

The granting of a motion for summary judgment is reviewed de novo. 

Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 
5

2000). Summary judgment is appropriate only where “there is no genuine 

issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment 

as a matter of law.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c). The burden is on the moving 

party to show “conclusively the absence of any genuine issue of material 

fact and the court must draw every possible inference in favor of the party 

against whom a summary judgment is sought.” Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 

2d 666, 668 (Fla. 1985). “If the evidence raises any issue of material fact, 

if it is conflicting, if it will permit different reasonable inferences, or if it 

tends to prove the issues, it should be submitted to the jury as a question 

of fact to be determined by it.” Id.

On appeal, Appellants contend that the trial court should have 

dismissed the suit pursuant to the “ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.” 

Appellants assert that pursuant to this doctrine, a lay court cannot 

adjudicate who, within a church, is authorized to run that church, 

maintaining that to resolve the dispute of ownership of real property in 

this case, a court would necessarily need to decide which faction within 

the church controls it. See Eglise Baptiste Bethanie De Ft. Lauderdale, Inc. 

v. Bank of Am., N.A., 321 So. 3d 245, 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021).

In our recent decision in Eglise, a non-profit corporation, conducting 

business as a Baptist church, sued two banks for negligently granting 

control of the church’s bank accounts to the widow of the deceased pastor.

Id. at 246. The trial court granted the banks’ motion to dismiss for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction, based upon the ecclesiastical abstention 

doctrine. Id. On appeal, we affirmed, reasoning:

[A]lthough the Church’s negligence claims against the Banks

involve a question of control over bank accounts, in order to 

resolve those claims the court would necessarily have to decide 

which faction within the Church controls the bank accounts. 

The only way for the court to make this determination is for it 

to consider the Church’s internal governance structure.

“[Q]uestions of church governance are manifestly 

ecclesiastical.” Id. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in 

dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 

based on the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.

Id. at 247 (second alteration in original) (emphasis added).

Notably, Appellants point out that “Florida has made the decision to 

apply the deference to church authority approach when resolving church 

property disputes.” Townsend v. Teagle, 467 So. 2d 772, 775 (Fla. 1st 

DCA 1985).
6

The deference approach, as stated in Watson v. Jones, [80 U.S. 

679 (1871),] requires the civil courts to defer to the decisions 

of church authorities on church matters where the church’s 

ecclesiastical government is hierarchical in structure. The 

civil courts must defer to any decision rendered by the church 

authorities in matters of “discipline[,] or of faith, or 

ecclesiastical rule, custom or law.” [Watson, 80 U.S. at 727]. 

The decision of “the highest of these church judicatories to 

which the matter has been carried” must be accepted as final 

and binding by legal tribunals. Id.

Id. (emphasis added). “The fact that the dispute involves title to real 

property or that it involves a conflict among heretofore nonschismatic 

church members in no way operates to permit the circuit court’s 

intervention.” Id.

Appellants argue that the trial court was required to make a twopronged inquiry whereby it was to first determine whether the Church of 

the Nazarene is hierarchical in nature and then determine whether Iglesia,

Inc. was affiliated with the church to an extent that it was part of, and a 

subordinate to, that hierarchical structure. See New Jerusalem Church of 

God, Inc. v. Sneads Cmty. Church, Inc., 147 So. 3d 25, 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 

2013).

New Jerusalem involved an interchurch dispute regarding which of two 

churches owned a piece of property. Id. There, a mother church selfidentified as a hierarchical church and asserted it owned the property of a 

local church whose deed did not conform to the requirements of the 

church’s governing document. Id. The local church went on to convey the 

property to another church prompting suit by the mother church. Id.

After a jury trial, final judgment was entered quieting title in favor of the 

new church and the mother church appealed. Id. On appeal, the First 

District held:

To allow the trial court or, in this case, the jury to determine 

whether [the mother church] was hierarchical allows the 

finder of fact to delve into matters of religious doctrine and 

polity—an inquiry that is clearly prohibited. As such, the trial 

court was obligated to defer to [the mother church]’s selfcharacterization and to recognize, as a matter of law, that [the 

mother church] is a hierarchical church.

Id. at 29 (emphasis added). The First District then explained:
7

Upon determining, as a matter of law, that [the mother 

church] is a hierarchical church, it would follow then that [the 

mother church] controls the property of its local affiliates. See 

Bethel AME Church of Newberry, Fla. v. Domingo, 654 So. 2d 

233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (holding that Mills [v. Baldwin, 362 

So. 2d 2, 7 (Fla. 1978)], requires that church property remain 

with the parent church where the church is hierarchical in 

structure). While this is the general rule in Florida, this rule 

does not end our inquiry. To simply conclude that local 

church property automatically flows to the mother church by 

virtue of a hierarchical church’s claim of ownership could lead 

to unfair results. Rather, we find that a second layer of inquiry 

is relevant here to determine property ownership. That is 

whether [the local church] was affiliated with [the mother 

church] such that it was a part of, and subordinate to, the 

hierarchical structure.

Id. (emphasis added). The First District noted that the evidence which had 

been presented at trial demonstrated that while the local church’s position 

was that its affiliation with the mother church was “loose,” such 

characterization of the relationship was at odds with the clear evidence of 

mutual assent to the hierarchical relationship with the mother church, 

which included the local church’s financial contributions to the mother 

church, attendance at annual conferences, and receipt of guidance from 

the mother church as well as use of its name. Id. at 30. As such, the First 

District determined that the local church was clearly affiliated with the 

mother church, which was a hierarchical church, such that according to 

the church’s governance, as well as the case law, the property properly 

belonged to the mother church. Id. (citing Full Gospel Temple of 

Tallahassee v. Redd, 82 So. 2d 589, 590 (Fla. 1955) (holding that, when 

the appellants withdrew from the parent church, they “carried nothing but 

their membership with them; the parent church retained title to the 

properties.”)).

In the instant case, Appellants are correct that the deference approach 

required the trial court to follow the two-part inquiry set forth in New 

Jerusalem. As to the first inquiry, the trial court was obligated to defer to 

Appellants’ characterization of the Church of the Nazarene as hierarchical 

in nature and to recognize, as a matter of law, that it is a hierarchical 

church.

As to the second inquiry, whether Iglesia, Inc. was affiliated as a 

subordinate to the hierarchical structure of the church, Appellants argue 
8

that the Appellees have admitted their dispute is ecclesiastic in nature 

such that their divorce must be governed under the same principles. In 

this regard, the summary judgment evidence reflected that both Poveda

and Mendoza acknowledged that Iglesia, Inc.’s 2014 corporate resolution 

stated that Iglesia, Inc. would take all necessary action required by the 

Manual to withdraw from the Church of the Nazarene. Therefore, 

summary judgment evidence in the record reflects that Iglesia, Inc. was 

not just a non-profit corporation, but to some extent, part of the Church 

of the Nazarene, such that it needed to abide by the Manual’s provisions

for withdrawal from the Church of the Nazarene. Indeed, Mendoza’s

deposition testimony confirmed both that the church board of Iglesia, Inc.

resolved to withdraw from the Church of the Nazarene, and that Iglesia,

Inc. was a part of the Church of the Nazarene before that resolution. 

Mendoza further admitted that the Manual represents Iglesia, Inc.’s 

bylaws.

Therefore, because some summary judgment evidence indicates that 

Iglesia, Inc. was affiliated with the Church of the Nazarene, and that its

withdrawal from the Church of the Nazarene would need to meet the 

Manual’s requirements, the question of whether the process by which the 

District took control over the Iglesia, Inc. board after declaring it a “church 

in crisis” would arguably be a question of church governance and require 

interpretation of the Manual’s withdrawal procedures. In other words, to 

the extent that Iglesia, Inc. was affiliated with the Church of the Nazarene, 

the determination of control over the Iglesia, Inc. board would be subject 

to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.

Appellees’ argument that Iglesia, Inc. was merely a non-profit 

organization separate and apart from the Church of the Nazarene relies on

contradictory evidence, and thus fails to justify affirmance of summary 

judgment in their favor. Moreover, to the extent Appellees rely on the 

assertion that Poveda used his own personal savings in making the initial 

purchase of the subject property, the record indicates that subsequent

mortgage payments were purportedly derived from parishioners’ tithes to 

the church. Appellees’ assertion that the District was outwardly

representing that it no longer had interest in this property by sending a 

letter to the city in 2007, advising that title to the property had just been 

transferred to Iglesia, Inc., was also qualified by Appellees’ admission that 

the District’s purpose for sending this letter was to obtain an extension of 

time for Iglesia, Inc. to be able to obtain funds in order to bring the property 

up to code. Likewise, testimony that the District itself had not made any 

financial contributions to Iglesia, Inc., and that since 2007, the District 

had not provided any support to Iglesia, Inc. or the Iglesia Church, in 

support of the argument that Iglesia, Inc. was unaffiliated with the Church 
9

of the Nazarene, conflicts with the testimony of both Poveda and Mendoza 

acknowledging Iglesia, Inc.’s subsequent 2014 corporate resolution to 

withdraw from the Church of the Nazarene, as well as deposition testimony 

that prior to the 2014 corporate resolution, Iglesia, Inc. was a part of the 

Church of the Nazarene and the Manual represents Iglesia, Inc.’s bylaws. 

Finally, Appellees’ argument that Appellants had admitted that a Nazarene 

Church Board, as defined by its Manual, is a different entity than the 

board of a Florida Corporation, inaccurately characterizes the record.

Conclusion

The conflicting summary judgment evidence of Iglesia, Inc.’s affiliation 

with and subordination to the Church of the Nazarene precluded summary 

judgment. Therefore, we reverse the final summary judgment and remand 

for further proceedings for the trial court to conduct the two-prong inquiry

set forth in New Jerusalem. If the trial court determines that Iglesia, Inc.

is affiliated with the Church of the Nazarene, and thereby the District, as 

a subordinate, then deference to the District’s determination is required

and the trial court is precluded by the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine 

from interfering with a matter of church governance.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

GERBER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.