R u le 1 0 o f t h e T e n n e sse e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls p ro v id e s: 1

T his C o urt, wit h the c o nc urre nc e o f all jud ge s p arti cip ati ng i n the c ase , m ay aff i rm , rev erse o r mo d i f y t he act i o ns o f

t he t ri al co urt by m em o randum o p i ni o n w hen a fo rma l op i ni o n wo ul d have no pre ceden t i al va l ue . W he n a c as e i s deci ded b y memo r andum opi ni on i t s hal l be des i gn at ed

" M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N " , shal l not b e p ub l i shed, and s hal l not b e ci t ed or rel i ed on f o r any r eas on i n a ny un r el at ed cas e. 

### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

AT JAC KSON Fe brua ry 16, 200 5 S es sio n SANDRA JOYCE H AYES v . WI LLI AM TYSON, ET AL 

### . Direc t Appeal from the Chancer y Court for Shelby Cou nty No. CH-04-0071- 1 WalterL. Evan s, Chancellor

No. W2004-00750-C OA-R3-C V - F iled April 19, 2005

T h e tria l c o u r t d is mi s s e d Pl a in ti f f ’ s c a u s e s o f a c ti o n f

o r la c k o f s u b

je c t matt e r ju r is d iction. We a ff ir m. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Cha nc e r y C our t A ffirm e d; and Rem anded D AVI D R. F ARMER , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in whic h A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J . and H O LLY M. K I RBY , J ., joined. Gl e nw oo d P. Roane , Sr ., Me mph is, Te nn e sse e , f or the app e lla nt, Sa nd ra

Joy c e Hay e s. Richard D. Be nnett and L ouis J ay Miller, Memphis, Tennesse e, for the appe llees, Will iam Ty son, N. D. Sander s and F irst Ba ptist C hurch Chelse a. M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION 1 Petitioner Sandra Hay es (Rev. H ay es) wa s hired to ser v e as pastor of F irst Ba ptist C hurch Chelsea ( First B aptist) i n J an u ar y 2003. On Dec ember

31, 2003, Wil liam Ty son (Mr. Ty son), Chairman of the Boa

rd of Dea cons, and Norve lle Sanders ( Mr. Sander s), Chairman of the B oard of Tr us te e s, inf

orme d Re v. Hay e s, in w ri tin g , th a t th e me mbe rs of F ir st B apti st h a d v ote d to te rm inate her e mploy ment eff

ective January 2, 2004. On J anuary 12, 2004, Rev. Hay es petitioned the Shelby Cou nty Chanc e ry Cou rt fo r a t e mpo ra ry re str a ini ng or de r andpe rm a ne nt i nju nc tio n e njo ini ng F ir st-2-

Ba ptist, M r . T y s o n , an d

M r . Sa n d e r s ( c o ll e c tively , Respondents) fr om prohibiting her from pre aching and performing p as toral func tions. I n her pe tition, R ev. Hay es asse rted that, prior to termination, a member

of F irst Ba

ptist’s Boar d of De acons ha d preve nted her from mi n i s t er i n g to the cong reg ation by

defaming he r in churc h. She further asserted she wa s terminated witho u t the requisite number

of votes fr om churc h membership. On J anuary 26, 2004, Respondents moved the c ourt to dismis s Rev. Hay es’ pe tition for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. I n their motion, Respondents asserte d First B aptist had hired Rev. Hay e s f or a n in de fi nit e pe ri odof

tim e a ndwi tho ut a

writt e n co nt ract

. The y

fu rthe r a sse rt e d F ir st Ba ptist’s decision to terminate Rev. Hay es’ employ ment was an ec clesiastic matter over w hich the court ha d no subject matter jurisdiction under the Fir s t A me n d me nt to the United States Consti tution. On J anuary

28, Respondents filed an answer r eiterating their position t hat the trial c ourt lacke d su bje c t matt er ju ri sd ic tio n a ndfu rthe r a sse rt ing , a s a n a ff ir ma tiv e de fe ns e , Re v. Hay e s’ failu re to state a c laim for which r elief may be g rante d. The trial c ourt dismissed the matter on Fe b ru ar y19, 2004. I n its order, the tria l court determined that Rev. Hay es had not a lleg ed any specific claims ag ainst Mr. Ty son or Mr. Sander s in their individual capa city . The trial c ourt found that, althoug h Rev. Hay es alleg ed a me mber of the chu r c h h a d d e f

a me d h e r , s h e d id n o t a ll e g e th a t e ith e r M r . Sa n d e r s o r M r . Ty son had made defa matory

rema rks ag ainst her. The court dismissed the m atter insofar as it related to def amation for lac k of jurisdiction under Te nnessee Code Annotated § 16- 11-102. The trial court dismissed the matter re g arding alleg ations of wrong ful dischar ge fo r l ac k of subject matter jurisdiction over an ecc lesiastic matter. Rev. H ay es filed a timely notice of a

ppeal to this Court. Issues Presented Rev. Hay es ra ises the following issues for our r eview: (1) Whether Petitioner has met he r burde n of e s t abli shing subjec t matter jurisd ic tio n inthe c ha nc e ry c ou rt

. (2 ) W hethe r the c ha nc e ry c ou rt e rr e d infaili ng to t

rans fe r the c a se to c ir c uit c ou rt

. Sta nda rd of Re v ie w T he issues raised for our revie w prese nt que stions of law. Our revie w of the t ri al co u rt 's c on c lus ion s on ma tte rs of la w i s de novo with no presumption of correc tness. Bo wde n v . W ar d , 27 S.W .3d 913, 916 (Tenn. 2000) ; Tenn. R. App P. 13(d).-3- Anal y sis Rev. Hay es asse rts the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to enjoin Respondents from terminating her e mploy ment. We disag ree . I n her pe titi o n , R ev. Hay es asse rts Respondents terminated he r in violation of churc h proce dure. The courts have no jurisdiction over ec clesiastic matter s. Lewis v. Partee , 62 S.W . 328, 333 (Tenn. 1901) . Wit h the exception of ac tions of a church affec ting property or civil rig hts, the courts will not “re vise or . . . inquire into the prop riety or justice of the action of a churc h.” Id. Ho we ve r, a

c ou rt wi ll i nq uir e int o th e fa c t [of ] w he the r a c e rt a in pe rs on ha s b e e n e le c te d p a sto r o r i s pastor, or w hether

certain persons a

re de acons or

trustees, or w hether

certain persons ha ve be e n e xco mmu nic a te d f ro m th e c hu rc h o r a

re sti ll m e mbe rs of

the c hu rc h, in or de r to pro tec t the c hu rc h a ndits me mbe rs hip in the e njo y me nt o f the ir pr op e rt y rig hts, and their civil liberty to worship undi sturbed bythreats and violence , or fr om trespasse s by

those who ar e not offic ers a nd members of the chur ch. Id. On the other

hand, the r emoval of a

pastor fr om a chur ch is an ecclesia stic matter over which the civil courts have no jurisdiction. Mason v. W instead , 265 S.W .2d 561, 563 (Tenn. 1954). Further, matters of c hurch discipline, e ven whe re a rg uably proce durally

flawe d, are not withi nth eju ris d ic tion of the c ivi l c ou rt s. Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojev ich , 426 U.S. 696, 713-14 (1976). Th us , th e tr ia l c ou rt

didno t e rr

in d e te rm ini ng it lac kedsu bje c t matte r j urisd ic tio n to e njo in Re sp on de nts fr om t e rm inatin g Re v. Hay e s’ e mpl oyme nt a s p a sto r o f F ir st B apti st. Re v. Hay e s f

urthe r a sse rt s th e tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d b y no t tr a ns fe rring he r d e fama tio n c la ims to circ uit court. We find this arg ument unconvincing

. We f irst note that Rev. Hay es did not commence a ca use of a cti o n s ee k i n g damag es for defamation, nor did she see k to enjoin the actions of a ny person in particular. She mer ely petitioned the trial court to e njoin the acts of unname d persons who, sh e a lle g e s, pro hibit e d h e r f ro m pe rf ormin g he r p a sto ra l du tie s b y makin g dis pa

ra g ing re mark s in c hu rc h. Re v. Hay es do es not a lle g e that e ith e r M r. Ty so n o r M r. Sa nd e rs ma de the a lle g e dly defa matory rema

rks. I n light of our holding above, we find this issue moot. The re is simply nothing rema ining f

or the c ourt to enjoin. Holdin g I n li g ht o f the fo re g oin g , ju dg me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt dis mis sin g thi s matte r i s a ff ir me d. Cos ts of this appea l are taxed to the Appellant, Sandra J oy ce Hay es, and her sur ety , for whic h execution m a y i s s u e i f

n e c e s s ar y.

___________________________________ DAVID R. FARMER, J UDGE