IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. COA15-1313

Filed: 7 February 2017

Cumberland County, No. 13 CVS 8726

GEORGE BURNS, MACK McCANN and CHARLES BARTLETT, Trustees of Park’s 

Chapel Free Will Baptist Church, Plaintiff(s),

v.

KINGDOM IMPACT GLOBAL MINISTRIES, INC., Defendant.

Appeal by Defendant from orders entered 18 December 2014 by Judge Richard 

T. Brown and 19 June 2015 by Judge Tanya T. Wallace1 in Cumberland County 

Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 May 2016.

Yarborough, Winters & Neville, P.A., by J. Thomas Neville, for PlaintiffsAppellees.

James H. Locus, Jr., for Defendant-Appellant.

INMAN, Judge.

Kingdom Impact Global Ministries, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Kingdom Impact”) 

appeals from the 19 June 2015 order granting a motion for summary judgment in 

favor of George Burns, Mack McCann, and Charles Bartlett, in their capacity as 

trustees of Parks Chapel Free Will Baptist Church (collectively “Plaintiffs”), as the 

rightful title holder to several tracts of land located at 868 Amye Street in 

 

1 The order below incorrectly spells Judge Wallace’s name as Judge Tonya T. Wallace.
BURNS V. KINGDOM IMPACT

Opinion of the Court

- 2 -

Fayetteville, North Carolina. Defendant also appeals the trial court’s 18 December 

2014 order imposing sanctions for Defendant’s failure to respond to Plaintiffs’ 

discovery requests. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs lacked standing, and that the 

trial court erred in imposing discovery sanctions and granting Plaintiffs’ motion for 

summary judgment because there existed genuine issues of material facts. After 

careful review, we affirm the trial court’s discovery sanctions and summary judgment 

orders.

Factual History

This appeal arises out of the disputed ownership of real property located at 868 

Amye Street, in Fayetteville, North Carolina (“the Property”). The Property, 

conveyed seventy years ago to the trustees of Free Will Baptist Church, is comprised 

of several tracts of land and includes a church sanctuary. Over the years, 

parishioners deeded various tracts of land to the “Trustees of the Freewill Baptist 

Church and their successors” and later to the “Trustees of Parks Chapel Free Will 

Baptist Church and their successors.” The church was affiliated with the United 

American Free Will Baptist Denomination (the “Denomination”).

The tracts central to this dispute, where the sanctuary is sited, have been 

historically identified as Lots 12, 13, and 14 according to the plat of “Mac’s Park.” In 

1947, Emily McMillan conveyed Lots 13 and 14 by deed to the trustees of Freewill 

Baptist Church to be used for church purposes. In 1967, Mabel McNeill conveyed Lot 
BURNS V. KINGDOM IMPACT

Opinion of the Court

- 3 -

12 by deed to the trustees of Free Will Baptist Church to be used by the

Denomination.

Contained within the 1947 deed conveying Lots 13 and 14 to Free Will Baptist 

Church is the following restrictive language:

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the aforesaid lots of land and 

all privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging, to the 

said parties of the second part, and their successors in 

office, to their only use and behood for so long as said 

property is used only for church purposes, and no longer, 

upon the trust, nevertheless, that said property be held by 

the parties of the second part, and their successors in office, 

for the sole use, benefit, and enjoyment of said FREEWILL 

BAPTIST CHURCH, its successors and assigns.

The 1967 deed conveying Lot 12 to Free Will Baptist Church includes the following 

restrictive language:

In trust that said premises shall be used, maintained and 

disposed of as a place of Divine worship for the use of the 

United American Free Will Baptist Church in America, 

subject to the discipline, usage, and ministerial elections of 

said church, as may be authorized and declared from time 

to time by the General Conference of said church and the 

Annual Conference in whose bounds the premises are 

situated.

In 1984, the trustees of Free Will Baptist Church conveyed Lots 13 and 14 to 

the trustees of Parks Chapel Free Will Baptist Church (“Parks Chapel”) as successor 

to Free Will Baptist Church. It is undisputed that the church simply changed its 

name at that time. It is also undisputed that the trustees of Free Will Baptist Church, 

for reasons that do not appear in the record, did not convey title in Lot 12 to the 
BURNS V. KINGDOM IMPACT

Opinion of the Court

- 4 -

trustees of Parks Chapel when they conveyed Lots 13 and 14 when the church 

changed its name.

In 1999, Parks Chapel became incorporated under North Carolina law as a 

registered charitable or religious nonprofit corporation. The corporate bylaws 

required that the church be governed by the Book of Discipline of the Denomination, 

stating “this local church shall maintain its’ [sic] affiliation with the United American 

Freewill Baptist Denomination and agrees to recognize and be governed by the 

United American Freewill Baptist Discipline . . . .”

On 3 April 2009, at the conclusion of a worship service, then acting pastor of 

Parks Chapel, William Thomas Ford (“Pastor Ford”), held a conference meeting to 

propose withdrawing Parks Chapel from the Denomination and the regional 

conference to which it was assigned, Cape Fear Conference B (the “Conference”). The 

parties submitted conflicting evidence before the trial court regarding whether notice 

of the meeting was provided, who was permitted the opportunity to vote on the 

withdrawal, and the outcome of a vote held during the meeting.

A month later, on 8 May 2009, Pastor Ford sent a letter to the Denomination 

and the Conference notifying them that Parks Chapel was withdrawing its 

membership and would cease paying dues.

In February 2010, Pastor Ford signed Articles of Incorporation for Kingdom 

Impact, which were filed with the North Carolina Secretary of State’s Office, 
BURNS V. KINGDOM IMPACT

Opinion of the Court

- 5 -

declaring Kingdom Impact a non-profit religious organization. In May 2010, Frances 

Jackson, identified as a trustee of Parks Chapel, signed Articles of Merger of Parks 

Chapel Freewill Baptist Church, Inc. into Kingdom Impact Global Ministries, Inc. 

with the Secretary of State’s Office. The affidavit testimony before the trial court 

however, challenged whether the merger was properly voted on by the members of 

Parks Chapel.

In June 2010, one month after the Articles of Merger were filed, the 

Denomination appointed Nathaniel Jackson as the Interim Pastor of Parks Chapel. 

The members of Parks Chapel who had opposed the withdrawal from the 

Denomination continued their affiliation with the Denomination and met for worship 

at the sanctuary on the Property until Defendant denied them access to the Property.

On 12 September 2011, Frances Jackson signed a deed transferring title of the 

Property from the trustees of Parks Chapel to the trustees of Kingdom Impact. This 

deed expressly transferred Lots 13 and 14 of Mac’s Park, but does not mention Lot 

12. Unlike the 1984 deed conveying the Property from the trustees of Free Will to 

the trustees of Parks Chapel, which was signed by all church trustees, no one other 

than Ms. Jackson signed the 2011 deed. Plaintiffs dispute that Ms. Jackson was a 

trustee of Parks Chapel at that time. Plaintiffs contend that Kingdom Impact, 
BURNS V. KINGDOM IMPACT

Opinion of the Court

- 6 -

claiming ownership and control of the Property based on the deed, dispossessed

Plaintiffs of the Property and prevented them from continuing to worship there.

2

Procedural History

Plaintiffs filed a civil action on 12 November 2013 alleging that Kingdom 

Impact was not authorized to transfer title to the Property and sought to quiet the 

title for their claims to the Property as the trustees of Parks Chapel. Plaintiffs also 

filed notice of lis pendens with the Clerk of Court in Cumberland County. Defendant 

filed an answer and counterclaim to quiet title in the Property.

Discovery Disputes

In 2014, several months after commencing this action, Plaintiffs served 

Defendant with interrogatories and a request for production of documents. 

Defendant failed to respond within the time allowed and did not seek an extension of 

time to respond. Plaintiffs sought responses without success before filing a motion to 

compel discovery. The trial court entered a consent order on 14 October 2014

(“Consent Order”) requiring Defendant “to produce full and accurate responses[,]” 

and “produce all documents responsive” to Plaintiffs’ discovery request within fortyfive days.

 

2 The record indicates that by 2009, when Pastor Ford proposed and took a vote to withdraw 

from the Denomination, Parks Chapel’s parishioners were gathering for worship at 2503 Murchison 

Road, Fayetteville, North Carolina, a location different from the Property. The real property at the 

Murchison Road address is not at issue in this appeal.
BURNS V. KINGDOM IMPACT

Opinion of the Court

- 7 -

Defendant served Plaintiffs with discovery responses on 20 November 2014. 

Instead of providing factual responses to each interrogatory, Defendant objected to 

many of the interrogatories as “over broad and vague.” Plaintiffs argued the response 

was inadequate and filed a motion to show cause and sanctions. The trial court 

entered an order on 18 December 2014 (“Sanctions Order”) finding that “Defendant 

has failed to fully respond to the Plaintiffs’ discovery requests and Orders of this 

[c]ourt” and required that Defendant provide substantive responses no later than 19 

January 2015. The Sanctions Order also prohibited Defendant from offering in 

evidence, at trial or in any motion, any documents responsive to the discovery 

requests which were not tendered to Plaintiffs by 19 January 2015.

On 20 January 2015, Defendant served Plaintiffs with a request for 

admissions. Plaintiffs moved for a protective order from the request on the basis that 

as a result of the Sanctions Order, Defendants would be prohibited from introducing 

in evidence any admissions obtained after 19 January 2015. The trial court granted 

the motion in a protective order entered 27 February 2015 (“Protective Order”).

Motions for Summary Judgment

The parties then filed cross motions for summary judgment. The motions were 

heard over multiple sessions of court in which counsel disputed the legal merits as 
BURNS V. KINGDOM IMPACT

Opinion of the Court

- 8 -

well as the admissibility of various affidavits.3 The trial court took the matter under 

advisement. On 19 June 2015, the trial court entered an order granting Plaintiffs’ 

motion for summary judgment and denying Defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment. Defendant timely appealed.

Analysis

I. Discovery Sanctions

Defendant argues the trial court erred in the Sanctions Order and in the 

Protective Order by expanding the scope of the sanctions beyond the language of the

Sanctions Order. Specifically, Defendant asserts that the facts do not support the 

trial court’s finding that Defendant substantially violated any of the discovery rules

and that the Sanctions Order did not preclude Defendant from pursuing discovery 

after 19 January 2015. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion 

in entering either the Sanctions Order or the Protective Order.

A. Sanctions Order

The imposition of sanctions under Rule 37 for failure to comply with discovery 

requests and orders is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court and 

cannot be overturned on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion. Bumgarner 

 

3 Defendant filed with its motion an affidavit by Francis Jackson dated 17 April 2015. 

Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike the affidavit on the grounds that it violated the 18 December 2014 

discovery sanctions order. The trial court overruled the motion to strike and permitted the affidavit. 

When counsel appeared for the second session of the hearing, counsel disputed the admissibility of 

additional affidavits, including two that were filed but not served before the second hearing. The trial 

court overruled all objections and allowed the affidavits.
BURNS V. KINGDOM IMPACT

Opinion of the Court

- 9 -

v. Reneau, 332 N.C. 624, 631, 422 S.E.2d 686, 690 (1992) (citation omitted). “An abuse 

of discretion may arise if there is no record evidence which indicates that [a] 

defendant acted improperly, or if the law will not support the conclusion that a 

discovery violation has occurred.” In re Pedestrian Walkway Failure, 173 N.C. App. 

254, 264, 618 S.E.2d 796, 803 (2005) (citations omitted). The specific choice of 

sanctions imposed by the trial court is likewise within its sound discretion. Brooks v. 

Giesey, 106 N.C. App. 586, 592, 418 S.E.2d 236, 239 (1992) (citation omitted). As an 

appropriate sanction for a failure to comply with a discovery order, Rule 37(b)

explicitly grants the trial court authority to “refus[e] to allow the disobedient party 

to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibit[] the party from 

introducing designated matters in evidence” and to “require the party failing to obey 

the order to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees[.]” N.C. Gen. Stat. 

§ 1A-1, Rule 37(b) (2015).

Here, the record is replete with information supporting the Sanctions Order. 

Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ initial discovery requests for three months,

leading to a consent order being entered in favor of Plaintiffs. While Defendant did 

serve Plaintiffs with discovery responses within the designated timeframe of the 

Consent Order, the record shows the responses failed to produce complete factual 

information and asserted objections that had long been waived. See Golding v. 

Taylor, 19 N.C. App. 245, 248, 198 S.E.2d 478, 480 (1973) (“[I]n the absence of an 
BURNS V. KINGDOM IMPACT

Opinion of the Court

- 10 -

extension of time, failure to object to interrogatories within the time fixed by the rule 

is a waiver of any objection . . .” ); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 33 (2015) (“[t]he party 

upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall serve a copy of the answers, 

and objections if any, within 30 days after the service of the interrogatories . . . .”).

Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion by not making findings 

of fact and conclusions of law regarding how its responses were deficient or 

inconsistent with the Consent Order. Defendant fails to cite any authority supporting 

the contention that a trial court is required to make findings regarding specific 

discovery violations when imposing sanctions against a party. Contrary to 

Defendant’s assertion, Rule 52(a)(2) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure 

states that “findings of fact and conclusions of law are necessary on decisions of any 

motion . . . only when requested by a party . . . .” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 52(a)(2)

(2015). Our Supreme Court has held it is within the discretion of the trial court 

“whether to make a finding of fact if a party does not choose to compel a finding 

through the simple mechanism of so requesting.” Watkins v. Hellings, 321 N.C. 78, 

82, 361 S.E.2d 568, 571 (1987) (“It has been held repeatedly by this Court that ‘[w]hen 

the trial court is not required to find facts and make conclusions of law and does not 

do so, it is presumed that the court on proper evidence found facts to support its 

judgment.’ ”) (alteration in original) (quoting Estrada v. Burnham, 316 N.C. 318, 324, 
BURNS V. KINGDOM IMPACT

Opinion of the Court

- 11 -

341 S.E.2d 538, 542 (1986)). The record here does not reveal that Defendant asked 

the trial court to make factual findings.

We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion by precluding Defendant 

from offering into evidence documents not produced before the aforementioned date.

B. Protective Order

Defendant further argues that the trial court exceeded the scope of the 

Sanctions Order by entering the Protective Order, preventing Defendant from 

obtaining admissions from Plaintiffs. Defendant asserts that this sanction amounts 

to a bar on Defendant’s ability to pursue discovery. This argument is without merit. 

Defendant had ample opportunity to seek discovery prior to 19 January 2015. The 

Protective Order was an effectuation of the Sanctions Order, which provided a further 

extension of time to Defendant to provide long past due discovery responses. It was 

within the trial court’s discretion to determine the scope of the Sanctions Order with 

respect to later discovery requests. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion in entering the Protective Order.

II. Standing

Defendant also challenges Plaintiffs’ standing to bring this action in their 

capacities as the “Trustees of Parks Chapel.” Defendant argues Plaintiffs ceased to 

be Trustees of Parks Chapel on 6 May 2010 following the merger of Parks Chapel into 
BURNS V. KINGDOM IMPACT

Opinion of the Court

- 12 -

Kingdom Impact, and that because of this cessation Plaintiffs were divested of 

standing. We disagree.

Defendant’s argument misinterprets the capacity in which Plaintiffs bring this 

suit. Defendant asserts that Parks Chapel ceased to exist following the merger, and 

that Plaintiffs could not possibly have brought suit on behalf of a non-entity. But 

Plaintiffs’ complaint specifically states the suit is being brought by Plaintiffs as 

trustees of Parks Chapel, a “non-incorporated entity.” Defendant concedes in its 

answer and counterclaim that Plaintiffs were trustees of Parks Chapel at all relevant 

times. Regardless of the validity of the merger and the incorporation status of Parks 

Chapel, Plaintiffs have the ability to bring a suit as trustees of a non-incorporated 

religious organization seeking to assert property rights. See N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 59B4, 59B-5, 59B-15, and 61-2 (2015). 

Although Defendant presented evidence by affidavit before the trial court that 

raises a factual dispute about Frances Jackson’s status as a trustee of Parks Chapel, 

Defendant presented no evidence raising a factual dispute regarding Plaintiffs’ status 

as trustees of Parks Chapel. Plaintiffs’ claim is not dependent upon them comprising 

all of the trustees of Parks Chapel, but merely upon Defendant’s failure to obtain the 

consent of all trustees to transfer the Property.

For more than two centuries, Chapter 61 of the North Carolina General 

Statutes has provided special protections for real property owned by churches. N.C. 
BURNS V. KINGDOM IMPACT

Opinion of the Court

- 13 -

Gen. Stat. § 61-2 provides that “[t]he trustees and their successors have power to . . . 

take and hold property, real and personal, in trust for such church or denomination, 

religious society or congregation; and they may sue or be sued in all proper actions, 

for or on account of the . . . property so held or claimed by them . . . .” N.C. Gen. Stat. 

§ 61-3 (2015) provides, inter alia: 

All glebes, lands and tenements, heretofore purchased, 

given, or devised for the support of any particular ministry, 

or mode of worship, and all churches and other houses built 

for the purpose of public worship, and all lands and 

donations of any kind of property or estate that have been 

or may be given, granted or devised to any church or 

religious denomination, religious society or congregation 

within the State for their respective use, shall be and 

remain forever to the use and occupancy of that church or 

denomination, societies or congregations . . . and the estate 

therein shall be deemed and held to be absolutely vested, 

as between the parties thereto, in the trustees respectively 

of such churches, denominations, societies and 

congregations, for their several use, according to the intent 

expressed in the conveyance . . . .

North Carolina statute recognizes that real property can be held by an 

unincorporated association. “Real and personal property in this State may be 

acquired, held, encumbered, and transferred by a nonprofit association, whether or 

not the nonprofit association or a member has any other relationship to this State.” 

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 59B-4. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 59B-15(a) further states that “[n]othing in 

this Chapter changes the law with reference to the holding and conveyance of land 

by the trustees of churches under Chapter 61 of the General Statutes where the land 
BURNS V. KINGDOM IMPACT

Opinion of the Court

- 14 -

is conveyed to and held by the trustees.” Plaintiffs, as trustees of Parks Chapel, are 

asserting a claim for real property held by them in trust for Parks Chapel. 

Accordingly, we hold Plaintiffs have standing to bring this quiet title action.

III. Summary Judgment

Lastly, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in granting Plaintiffs’

motion for summary judgment because there existed before the trial court some

evidence that raised genuine issues of material fact. We disagree.

An appeal from an order granting summary judgment is reviewed de novo by 

this Court. Andresen v. Progress Energy, Inc., 204 N.C. App. 182, 184, 696 S.E.2d 

159, 160 (2010) (citation omitted). “Summary judgement is appropriate when there 

is no genuine issues as to any material fact and any party is entitled to a judgment 

as a matter of law.” Id. at 184, 696 S.E.2d at 160-61 (internal quotation marks and 

citations omitted). “[A]n issue is genuine if it is supported by substantial evidence, 

and . . . is material if the facts alleged would constitute a legal defense, or would affect 

the result of the action, or if its resolution would prevent the party against whom it 

is resolved from prevailing in the action[.]” DeWitt v. Eveready Battery Co., Inc., 355

N.C. 672, 681, 565 S.E.2d 140, 146 (2002) (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might 

accept as adequate to support a conclusion, and means more than a scintilla or a 

permissible inference[.]” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
BURNS V. KINGDOM IMPACT

Opinion of the Court

- 15 -

“The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of establishing 

that there is no triable issue of material fact.” Id. (citing Nicholson v. Am. Safety Util. 

Corp., 346 N.C. 767, 774, 488 S.E.2d 240, 244 (1997)). “The movant may meet this 

burden by proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent, or by showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce 

evidence to support an essential element of his claim or cannot surmount an 

affirmative defense which would bar the claim.” Collingwood v. General Elec. Real 

Estate Equities, Inc., 324 N.C. 63, 66, 376 S.E.2d 425, 427 (1989) (citations omitted). 

Once this burden is met, the nonmoving party must “produce a forecast of evidence 

demonstrating that the [nonmoving party] will be able to make out at least a prima 

facie case at trial” to avoid dismissal. Id. (citation omitted). “All inferences of fact 

from the proofs offered at the hearing must be drawn against the movant and in favor 

of the party opposing the motion.” Id. (citing Page v. Sloan, 281 N.C. 697, 190 S.E.2d 

189 (1972)).

“In order to establish a prima facie case for removing a cloud on title, a plaintiff 

must meet two requirements: (1) plaintiff must own the land in controversy, or have 

some estate or interest in it; and (2) defendant must assert some claim in the land 

which is adverse to plaintiff’s title, estate or interest.” Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. 

Wetherington, 127 N.C. App. 457, 461, 490 S.E.2d 593, 597 (1997) (citing Wells v. 

Clayton, 236 N.C. 102, 107, 72 S.E.2d 16, 20 (1952)).
BURNS V. KINGDOM IMPACT

Opinion of the Court

- 16 -

Here, Defendant failed to show any genuine issue as to material facts existed

or that Plaintiffs were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Defendant argues 

that there remain questions regarding: (1) whether “corporate formalities” were 

followed by Defendant related to the merger with Parks Chapel, including whether 

adequate notice was provided prior to the meeting to vote on the withdrawal from the 

Denomination; (2) whether a sufficient majority of the congregation of Parks Chapel 

actually voted to withdraw from the Denomination and the Conference; and (3) 

whether Frances Jackson, as a trustee of Parks Chapel, had authority to sign the 

deed transferring the title from Parks Chapel to Defendant. 

Plaintiffs, as trustees of Parks Chapel, have standing to bring this action 

pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 59B-4, 59B-5, 59B-15, and 61-2, regardless of the 

validity of the merger and the vote to withdraw from the Denomination. These 

factual disputes need not be resolved to affirm the trial court’s entry of summary 

judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have shown that there is no evidence in the 

record to support Defendant’s contention that Frances Jackson, acting alone, had sole 

authority to transfer the Property. The undisputed evidence demonstrates that the 

deed from Parks Chapel to Kingdom Impact was invalid because (1) the deeds 

conveying the Property to the trustees of Free Will Baptist Church, predecessor to 

Parks Chapel, included restrictive language requiring that the Property be used by a

church affiliated with the Denomination; (2) Parks Chapel, successor to Free Will 
BURNS V. KINGDOM IMPACT

Opinion of the Court

- 17 -

Baptist Church, continued the church’s affiliation with the Denomination; and (3) 

Kingdom Impact is not affiliated with the Denomination. The undisputed evidence 

also demonstrates that France Jackson did not have sole authority to transfer the 

Property without the signatures of all trustees.

Because the purported transfer of real property to Kingdom Impact violated 

real property statutes, the trial court did not need to resolve any factual dispute 

regarding corporate governance to invalidate the transfer and enter summary 

judgment quieting title in the Property to Plaintiffs.

Conclusion

For the above reasons, we hold that the trial court did not err in ordering 

sanctions or in granting Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment because there did 

not exist any genuine issues of material fact and Plaintiffs were entitled to judgment 

as a matter of law. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s sanctions and order for 

summary judgment. 

AFFIRMED.

Judges BRYANT and TYSON concur.