Title: Lott v. Eastern Shore Christian Center
Citation: 908 So. 2d 922
Docket Number: 1031694
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: January 14, 2005

908 So. 2d 922 (2005)
William B. LOTT, Jr.
v.
EASTERN SHORE CHRISTIAN CENTER and Anthony Legear.
1031694.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
January 14, 2005.
Rehearing Denied March 11, 2005.
*924 Gregory C. Buffalow of Miller Hamilton Snider &amp; Odom, LLC, Mobile, for appellant.
Mark D. Ryan, Bay Minette, for appellees.
WOODALL, Justice.
William B. Lott, Jr., appeals from the denial of three motions, namely, a motion for a temporary restraining order ("TRO"), and two motions for rule nisi. We affirm.
The motion for a TRO was one of two documents Lott filed on July 19, 2004, seeking relief against the Eastern Shore Christian Center, an Assembly of God church located in Daphne ("the Church"), of which he was a member, and its senior pastor, Anthony Legear. The other document was a "Verified Petition to Obtain Discovery and Complaint for Other Relief" ("the discovery petition"). The discovery petition sought an order requiring the Church to make certain of its financial records available to Lott for inspection and copying. It also sought an order "[a]uthorizing counsel for [Lott] to conduct a deposition of Pastor Legear, following review of the [records]."
The motion for a TRO sought an order restraining the Church from taking disciplinary action against Lott, in particular, from taking disciplinary action in the form of "expulsion from Church membership." More specifically, the motion stated:
(Some emphasis added; some emphasis omitted.)
The following day, the trial court conducted a hearing on the discovery petition and the motion for a TRO. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial judge orally granted the discovery petition, stating, in pertinent part:
However, the court denied the TRO motion, stating, in part:
(Emphasis added.)
Meanwhile, that same day, at a meeting of Legear and the other members of the Church's "official board,"[1] the board unanimously voted to "rescind and withdraw" the names of Lott and his wife "from the current membership roster." Lott was informed of the board's action by a letter dated July 20, 2004, which stated:
(Emphasis added.)
The following day, July 21, 2004, Lott filed his first motion for a rule nisi, namely, a "Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Respondents Should Not Be Held in Contempt." It stated:
(Emphasis added.)
That same day, July 21, 2004, Lott's legal counsel received by facsimile a letter from counsel for Legear and the Church; that letter stated:
(Emphasis added.)
On July 23, 2004, Lott's counsel received another letter from the Church's counsel by facsimile transmission; that letter stated:
*927 (Some emphasis added; some emphasis omitted.)
Meanwhile, on July 22, 2004, Lott filed a second "Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Respondents Should Not Be Held in Contempt." In addition to the grounds stated in the first motion, the second motion alleged: "Following receipt of the ruling in chambers on July 20, 2004 . . ., [the Church and Legear] have exhibited contempt for the court by refusing [Lott's] request for access and copying of records." On July 30, 2004, Lott filed a "motion to compel and request for sanctions."
The trial court denied the two rule nisi motions, and declined to rule on the motion to compel. On August 3, 2004, Lott appealed from that denial and from the denial of his motion for a TRO.[2] We will first consider the motion for a TRO, which sought to preempt any disciplinary action by the Church. Next, we will address the post-disciplinary show-cause motions, which sought to hold the Church and Legear in contempt for not allowing discovery on the basis of the disciplinary action taken, i.e., for not allowing discovery on the basis that Lott was no longer a member of the Church.
The elements required for the issuance of a TRO are the same as the elements required for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. Butler v. Alabama Judicial Inquiry Comm'n, 111 F. Supp. 2d 1224, 1229 (M.D.Ala.2000); United States v. Metropolitan Dade County, 815 F. Supp. 1475, 1477 (S.D.Fla.1993).
Ormco Corp. v. Johns, 869 So. 2d 1109, 1113 (Ala.2003) (quoting Perley v. Tapscan, Inc., 646 So. 2d 585, 587 (Ala.1994)) (emphasis added). "[A] petition for a temporary restraining order . . . addresses itself to the sound discretion of the trial court," Churchill v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama in Birmingham, 409 So. 2d 1382, 1389 (Ala.1982), overruled on other grounds, Ex parte Waterjet Sys., Inc., 758 So. 2d 505 (Ala.1999), and "[i]f no abuse of discretion is shown, [its] action will not be disturbed on appeal." Falk v. Falk, 355 So. 2d 722, 725 (Ala.Civ.App. 1978). Discretion is informed by the elements of a TRO, Chase Manhattan Bank v. Dime Savings Bank of New York, 961 F. Supp. 275, 276 (M.D.Fla.1997), with particular reference in this case to the plaintiff's chance of success on the merits.
It is undisputed that the Church is incorporated under the Alabama Nonprofit Corporation Act, Ala.Code 1975, §§ 10-3A-1 to -225 ("the Act"). Lott sought access to the Church's books and financial records on the basis of § 10-3A-43, which provides:
(Emphasis added.)
Lott contends that it was both necessary and proper for the court to issue a TRO to preserve his membership in the Church, and, by extension, his right to inspect the books. "Unless the court acted to preserve [his] membership status quo, pending inspection," Lott insists, his "statutory right to inspect was rendered meaningless." Lott's brief, at 14. The trial court concluded that it had "no jurisdiction over the internal workings of a church group" under the facts of this case. Thus, the issue is whether the trial court exceeded its discretion in refusing to enjoin the Church from expelling Lott after he invoked his rights under § 10-3A-43. We hold that it did not.
Courts are constrained by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution from "intrud[ing] into a religious organization's determination of . . . ecclesiastical matters such as theological doctrine, church discipline, or the conformity of members to standards of faith and morality." Singh v. Singh, 114 Cal. App. 4th 1264, 1275, 9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 4, 12 (2004) (emphasis added). "Of course, [Alabama] courts concerned with restraints under the First Amendment applicable to the states through the Fourteenth [Amendment] are bound by the authoritative interpretations of the First Amendment enunciated by the United States Supreme Court." 114 Cal. App. 4th  at 1280, 9 Cal. Rptr. 3d  at 16.
To be sure, this Court has reviewed the actions of churches in expelling members or electing officers. See, e.g., Yates v. El Bethel Primitive Baptist Church, 847 So. 2d 331 (Ala.2002); Abyssinia Missionary Baptist Church v. Nixon, 340 So. 2d 746 (Ala.1976); In re Galilee Baptist Church, 279 Ala. 393, 186 So. 2d 102 (1966). Jurisdiction was exercised in such cases, however, only insofar as "to determine whether an election meeting of a church, or a similar meeting, was conducted so improperly as to render its results void." Yates, 847 So. 2d  at 335-36 (the trial court properly invalidated an election of deacons, where the election meeting (1) was irregular in "several material respects"; (2) was conducted to circumvent a prior, unappealed injunction; and (3) involved no "issues of differences in religious faith," "creed," or "ecclesiastical doctrine"). See Nixon, supra (in an appeal from the grant of the pastor's motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Ala. R. Civ. P. 12(b), former church members, alleging that they had been improperly expelled, were entitled to "present evidence" of invalidity or "[ir]regularity of the meeting" in which they were expelled); In re Galilee, supra (court's inquiry was limited to whether the meeting convened for the pastor's removal was so irregular as to void the results).
Under certain circumstances, therefore, our courts have decided whether a church had acted in accordance with its established procedures. It does not follow, however, that a court may interfere in a disciplinary matter before the church acts. On the contrary, in an action to preempt church discipline, a federal district court has held that "[t]he mere expulsion from a religious society, with the exclusion from a religious community, is not a harm for which courts can grant a remedy." Grunwald v. Bornfreund, 696 F. Supp. 838, 840-41 (E.D.N.Y.1988). See also Alexander v. Shiloh Baptist Church, 62 Ohio Misc.2d 79, 592 N.E.2d 918 (1991).
*929 Grunwald involved an action by Yudah Grunwald against Ben Zion Bornfreund and others, alleging that the defendants had engaged in a fraudulent investment scheme, in violation of state and federal law, including the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962. Grunwald v. Bornfreund, 668 F. Supp. 128, 130 (E.D.N.Y.1987). Grunwald moved for a writ of mandamus, "prohibiting the `Central Rabbinical Congress of the United States and Canada, its Rabbinical Court and its members' . . . from temporarily or permanently excommunicating [him]" from the "branch of Orthodox Judaism" of which he was a member. 696 F. Supp.  at 839. The threat of excommunication was allegedly intended to pressure Grunwald into dismissing his action. 696 F. Supp.  at 839-40. The court denied the motion and declined to issue the writ, explaining that "the threat of excommunication" was "not a harm for which courts will provide a remedy." 696 F. Supp.  at 840.
As exemplified by Grunwald, this case differs fundamentally from the cases cited by Lott, which involved no disciplinary issues, or which involved post-expulsion procedural challenges. See, e.g., Mount Zion Baptist Church v. Second Baptist Church of Reno, 83 Nev. 367, 432 P.2d 328 (1967); Baugh v. Thomas, 56 N.J. 203, 265 A.2d 675 (1970); Watson v. Christie, 288 A.D.2d 29, 732 N.Y.S.2d 405 (2001).
The mere threat of expulsion, which is all the TRO motion in this case involved, obviously did not involve an issue regarding a secular, or neutral, procedural defect.[3] A challenge such as this one essentially alleges violation of a substantive right, such as a right to be free from the arbitrary action of an ecclesiastical body. However, the United States Supreme Court has clearly stated that no such right exists. Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the United States of America &amp; Canada v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 96 S. Ct. 2372, 49 L. Ed. 2d 151 (1976).
In Milivojevich, the Court considered whether the Illinois Supreme Court had properly invalidated the decision of the Holy Assembly of Bishops and the Holy Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church ("the Mother Church") to "defrock" Bishop Dionisije Milivojevich "on the ground that [the decision] was `arbitrary' because a `detailed review of the evidence disclose[d] that the proceedings resulting in Bishop Dionisije's removal and defrockment were not in accordance with the prescribed procedure of the constitution and the penal code of the Serbian Orthodox Church.'" 426 U.S.  at 718, 96 S. Ct. 2372. The Court held "that the inquiries made by the Illinois Supreme Court into matters of ecclesiastical cognizance and polity and the court's action pursuant thereto contravened the First and Fourteenth Amendments." 426 U.S.  at 698, 96 S. Ct. 2372. In doing so, it explained:
426 U.S.  at 712-16, 96 S. Ct. 2372 (emphasis added; footnotes omitted). See also Kaufmann v. Sheehan, 707 F.2d 355 (8th Cir.1983); Green v. United Pentecostal Church Int'l, 899 S.W.2d 28 (Tex.Ct.App. 1995).
Milivojevich involved the discipline of a bishop, rather than a church member such as Lott. Nevertheless, "[f]or essentially the same reasons that courts have refused to interfere with the basic ecclesiastical decision of choosing the minister . . ., this Court must not interfere with the fundamental ecclesiastical concern of determining who is and who is not [a Church] member."[4]Burgess v. Rock Creek Baptist Church, 734 F. Supp. 30, 33 (D.D.C. 1990). See also Kral v. Sisters of the Third Order Regular of St. Francis, 746 F.2d 450 (8th Cir.1984); Nunn v. Black, 506 F. Supp. 444, 448 (W.D.Va.) ("the fact that the local church may have departed arbitrarily from its established expulsion procedures in removing the plaintiffs is of no constitutional consequence, whether one appeals the First, Fifth, or Fourteenth Amendments"), aff'd, 661 F.2d 925 (4th Cir.1981); Caples v. Nazareth Church of Hopewell Ass'n, 245 Ala. 656, 660, 18 So. 2d 383, 386 (1944) ("`we have no power to revise or question ordinary acts of church membership, or of excision from membership'").
Lott's motion stated no grounds for a TRO, other than an allegedly intractable disagreement over "rights of access [to] and copying [of] Church records." In seeking to preempt church discipline on these grounds, the motion for a TRO essentially invited the court to become embroiled in the merits of a "fundamental ecclesiastical concern" with which the courts must have nothing to do, namely, "determining who is and who is not [a *931 Church] member." Burgess, 734 F. Supp.  at 33. Lott has cited no case preempting ecclesiastical discipline as he urged the trial court to do, and we have found none. Because Lott failed to show a "reasonable chance of success on the merits," the trial court did not err in denying his motion for a TRO.
In his post-expulsion rule nisi motions, Lott sought to hold the Church in contempt of the trial court's discovery order. In the second such motion, Lott alleged that the Church "purported to terminate [his membership] . . . without following notice and procedure required by bylaws [of] the Assembly of God organization, and governing Alabama Code provisions." (Emphasis added.) He also moved to "set aside the adverse membership action," thereby essentially reinstating his membership. These motions were also without merit.
"`[W]hether a party is in contempt of court is a determination committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and, absent an abuse of that discretion or unless the judgment of the trial court is unsupported by the evidence so as to be plainly and palpably wrong, this court will affirm.'" Crawford v. Gay, 703 So. 2d 368, 371 (Ala.Civ.App.1996) (quoting Stack v. Stack, 646 So. 2d 51, 56 (Ala.Civ.App.1994)).
It is well established that "[a] church member attacking a church decision may not obtain civil court review of that decision without first exhausting the church's internal appeal procedures." Burgess, 734 F. Supp.  at 35 n. 4 (citing Milivojevich, 426 U.S.  at 710-11, 96 S.Ct. 2372). See also First Baptist Church of Glen Este v. Ohio, 591 F. Supp. 676 (S.D.Ohio 1983); State ex rel. Nelson v. Ellis, 140 So. 2d 194, 197 (La.Ct.App.1962) ("an expelled member, seeking reinstatement, must first exhaust his Church's internal laws and procedure, before the Church's duly constituted officers").
It is undisputed that the Church bylaws provide an internal review procedure, which Lott has not yet exhausted. More specifically, in his "motion to compel and request for sanctions," Lott asserted that "[t]he termination is not final because an internal appeal to the [Church's] Board is pending." Thus, he could have no right to an order reinstating his membership pending the Church's review of his expulsion.
The inability of the trial court to interfere with the disciplinary action resolves Lott's final contention, that is, that the Church is in contempt because it denied him access to the premises, or to the Church records, on the ground that he is no longer a member. The issue is not whether he has standing to assert a substantive right, but whether that right has been extinguished.
On appeal, Lott concedes that his statutory right of access to the Church records arises out of his membership. Lott's brief, at 9, 14, and 22. The inspection rights guaranteed by § 10-3A-43 are specifically limited to "any member, director or officer [of the Church], or his agent or attorney." (Emphasis added.) Lott does not claim to be a "director or officer" in the Church.
The trial court could not, consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence, preserve Lott's membership as this case was procedurally postured. The termination of Lott's membership abated the right of inspection, pending a final resolution of the membership issue through the Church's appeal process. A contrary holding would be tantamount to a de facto reinstatement of membership, because it would compel the Church to treat Lott as a member despite his expulsion. This, the trial court could not do.
*932 Finally, Lott seeks to assert the rights of certain nonparties, such as, "Member Steve Ingersoll." In that connection, Lott states: "Further, putative mootness of a representative's claim does not moot the entire action as long as other members have a controversy, under the `wrongs capable of repetition' standard." Lott's brief, at 26. For that proposition, he cites Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814, 89 S. Ct. 1493, 23 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1969), for the holding as cited in Rice v. Sinkfield, 732 So. 2d 993, 994 n. 1 (Ala.1998), namely, "that plaintiffs' challenge to state election law was not moot, even after the challenged election was completed, because the plaintiffs could challenge the law with respect to future elections." The cases are obviously distinguishable. One involves the generally indefeasible voting franchise, while the other involves a defeasible Church membership and a right contingent on that membership.
This is not a class action, and Lott is not a class representative. He is the only plaintiff of record. He is thus confronted with the well-established rule that "`a litigant may not claim standing to assert the rights of a third party.'" Ex parte Izundu, 568 So. 2d 771, 772 (Ala. 1990) (quoting Jersey Shore Med. Ctr.-Fitkin Hosp. v. Estate of Baum, 84 N.J. 137, 417 A.2d 1003 (1980)). "A party lacks standing to invoke the power of the court in his behalf in the absence of a `concrete stake in the outcome of the court's decision.'" 568 So. 2d  at 772 (quoting Brown Mech. Contractors, Inc. v. Centennial Ins. Co., 431 So. 2d 932, 937 (Ala.1983)). Absent membership in the Church, Lott has no stake in the outcome of any discovery claim asserted by Steve Ingersoll or any other Church member, should one ever be asserted. Lott has standing to seek enforcement of the discovery order only on his own behalf.
For these reasons, the trial court did not exceed its discretion in denying the rule nisi and related motions for contempt.
The orders of the trial court denying the motion for a TRO and the rule nisi and related motions are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
NABERS, C.J., and HOUSTON, JOHNSTONE, and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.
[1]  According to the bylaws of the Church, the board was to be composed of the senior pastor and "five men of mature Christian experience and knowledge" elected from the membership of the Church.
[2]  The Church does not challenge the ruling on the discovery motion, which was resolved in Lott's favor.
[3]  This is so, because, when the TRO motion was filed, there had been no expulsion procedure, defective or otherwise.
[4]  It is generally held that the same considerations apply, regardless of whether the church has a congregational, rather than a hierarchical, form of government. First Baptist Church of Glen Este v. Ohio, 591 F. Supp. 676 (S.D.Ohio 1983); Heard v. Johnson, 810 A.2d 871 (D.C.2002); Callahan v. First Congregational Church of Haverhill, 441 Mass. 699, 808 N.E.2d 301 (2004); Tubiolo v. Abundant Life Church, Inc., 167 N.C.App. 324, 605 S.E.2d 161 (2004).