Title: Virginia M. Carnesi v. Ferry Pass United Methodist Church
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC00-2579
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: June 20, 2002

Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
 
____________
No. SC00-2579
____________
VIRGINIA M. CARNESI,
Petitioner,
vs.
FERRY PASS UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, PENSACOLA DISTRICT
OF THE ALABAMA WEST FLORIDA UNITED METHODIST
CONFERENCE, ALABAMA WEST FLORIDA UNITED METHODIST
CONFERENCE, and CHET HARRISON, individually and as Past Parish
Relations Committee Chairman,
Respondents.
[June 20, 2002]
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Carnesi v. Ferry Pass United Methodist Church, 770 So.
2d 1286 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), which cited as controlling authority Doe v. Evans,
718 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), quashed, 814 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 2002), which
was then pending review in this Court.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(3),
Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981).  On March 26, 2002, we
-2-
entered an order directing the parties to show cause why the decision should not be
quashed in light of our decisions in Doe v. Evans, 814 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 2002), and
Malicki v. Doe, 814 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 2002).  
Upon review of the responses to the March 26, 2002, order, the Court has
determined that it should remand the case in light of our opinions in Evans and
Malicki.  Accordingly, the First District's decision in this case is quashed and this
matter is remanded for proceedings consistent with our opinions in Evans and
Malicki. 
It is so ordered.
SHAW, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
WELLS, C.J., dissents with an opinion.
HARDING, J., dissents with an opinion.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND IF
FILED, DETERMINED.
WELLS, C.J., dissenting.
I do not agree that this case should be quashed and remanded in light of Doe
v. Evans, 814 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 2002), and Malicki v. Doe, 814 So. 2d 347 (Fla.
2002).  I recognize that the district court cites to Evans in its opinion, and the
majority of this Court quashed the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in
Evans.
-3-
However, the issues in the present case involve the authority which the
church conferred upon volunteers, which the district court’s majority correctly
concluded “will require a secular court to review and interpret church law, policies
and practices to determine whether an agency relationship existed.”  This is
indisputably correct, and I do not believe the decision in Malicki or Evans rendered
it incorrect.
I would discharge jurisdiction.  In this way a correct decision can remain in
effect.
Moreover, I believe the majority’s decision is confusing when it says, “[t]his
matter is remanded for proceedings consistent with our opinions in Evans and
Malicki.”  I do not understand what either the district court or the trial court is to do. 
I do not know whether this is intended to be a signal as to what to do about the
agency issue or whether the lower courts are still free to find that they should not
delve into church law and policy on the agency issue.  I do not know on what basis
the agency issue is to be decided.  There was no agency issue in respect to the
perpetrator of the sexual assault in Malicki or the person allegedly romantically
involved in Evans.
-4-
HARDING, J., dissenting.
Based on the reasons set forth in Malicki v. Doe, 814 So. 2d 347, 367-70
(Fla. 2002) (Harding, J., dissenting), and Doe v. Evans, 814 So. 2d 370, 381-83
(Fla. 2002) (Harding, J., dissenting), I would approve the decision of the court
below.  Also, I join in Chief Justice Wells’ concerns that the majority opinion
creates considerable confusion and offers little guidance to the trial court on remand.
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - Certified
Direct Conflict of Decisions
Firs District - Case No. 1D99-4333
(Escambia County)
Troy A. Rafferty and Timothy M. O’Brien of Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell,
Echsner & Proctor, P.A., Pensacola, Florida,
for Petitioner
William R. Mitchell and Stephen F. Bolton of Hook, Bolton, Mitchell, Kirkland &
McGhee, Pensacola, Florida, on behalf of Ferry Pass United Methodist Church; Eric
D. Stevenson and Michael W. Kehoe of Fuller, Johnson & Farrell, P.A., Pensacola,
Florida, on behalf of Pensacola District of the Alabama West Florida United Methodist
Conference; and Kathy J. Maus, Kim E. Wells, and Michael G. Haire, Jr., of Butler
Burnette Pappas LLP, Tallahassee, Florida, on behalf of Alabama West Florida United
Methodist Conference,
Respondents
Peter A. Miller of Conroy, Simberg & Ganon, Coral Gables, Florida; and Robert S.
Glazier, Miami, Florida,
-5-
for Church Mutual Insurance Company and Miami Shores Presbyterian
Church, Amici Curiae