Title: Smart v. Indiana Yearly Conf. of Wesleyan Meth. Ch.
Citation: 271 N.E.2d 713
Docket Number: 270S16
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: August 4, 1971

271 N.E.2d 713 (1971)
Marchall SMART, Individually and As Pastor of a Church Whose Name Is Unknown et al., Appellants,
v.
INDIANA YEARLY CONFERENCE OF THE WESLEYAN METHODIST CHURCH OF AMERICA, Appellee.
No. 270S16.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
August 4, 1971.
*714 John L. Fox, Indianapolis, for appellants.
Hughes &amp; Hughes, Indianapolis, for appellee.
GIVAN, Judge.
An ejectment action was brought by the appellee in the trial court. The appellee is a not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of Indiana. The appellants are members of a group which seceded from the appellee conference and continued to occupy the church real estate in question.
The record contains copies of two warranty deeds. Parcel 1 was conveyed to the appellee conference by Morton Edward Mitchell and his wife, Ruth E. Mitchell by a deed dated July 31, 1965. Parcel 2 was conveyed to the appellee conference by John C. Wehmeier and his wife, Helen Jane Wehmeier by a deed dated October 19, 1965.
The appellants filed an answer in abatement to which the appellee conference demurred. This demurrer was sustained; then the appellee filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of ejectment alone. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and the cause was continued as to damages. The finding and judgment of the trial court reads in pertinent part as follows:
*715 "IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court as follows:
"1. That plaintiff is the owner of the fee simple title to the following described real estate, situated in Marion County, State of Indiana, to wit:
It is appellants' position that the appellee conference paid nothing whatever for the real estate in question and that the appellee therefore relies solely on the discipline of the church to sustain its ownership of the land. Appellants thus reason that the judgment in favor of the appellee by the trial court was in violation of the principle of law laid down in Presbyterian Church of the United States v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church (1969), 393 U.S. 440, 89 S. Ct. 601, 21 L. Ed. 2d 658 and Merryman v. Price (1970), Ind., 259 N.E.2d 883, 22 Ind.Dec. 62.
In reality it is the appellants who are relying on the discipline of the church *716 in their attempt to establish an equitable ownership of the real estate in question. The appellee has demonstrated its ownership of the property, subject only to the possibility of an equitable trust established for the benefit of another. The appellants attempt to make their case of an equitable trust by turning to the discipline of the church. As pointed out in the Presbyterian Church case, supra, and the Merryman case, supra, the civil courts will not pass upon matters of ecclesiastical discipline.
We would observe that Justice Harlan in his concurring opinion in the Presbyterian Church case correctly observes that civil courts can enforce conditional trusts if the fulfillment of the condition can be immediately ascertained without determining ecclesiastical questions.
In the case at bar when we examine the discipline in question, we find that there can be no resulting trust in favor of the appellants. Burns' Ind. Stat., 1961 Repl., § 56-606, IC 1971, 30-1-9-6 states:
Burns' Ind. Stat., 1961 Repl., § 56-608, IC 1971, 30-1-9-8 states three exceptions to the general rule: (1) where the alienee has taken the conveyance in his own name, without the consent of the person who paid the consideration; (2) where the alienee has purchased the land with another's money in violation of some trust; or (3) where the alienee in whom title shall vest, by agreement and without any fraudulent intent is to hold the land or some interest therein in trust for the party paying the consideration.
In the case at bar the appellee has taken the conveyance with the consent of the appellants who paid the consideration. There is no violation of any trust nor has the appellee agreed to hold the land for the appellants. The contrary is recited in the discipline at § 57(6) where it is stated that the board of trustees of the local church (appellants herein) have the right to supervise, control and maintain the property for the use and benefit of the ministry and members of the organized general church (appellee herein).
It is, therefore, the decision of this Court that under the civil law of Indiana the appellee is the owner of the real estate in question. We find nothing in the discipline of the church which would give rise to the existence of a trust in favor of appellants.
The trial court is in all things, therefore, affirmed.
ARTERBURN, C.J., DeBRULER. HUNTER and PRENTICE, JJ., concur.