Opinion ID: 1959644
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Circuit Court possessed the authority to consider injunctive relief in a legal dispute involving a religious organization.

Text: Before we consider whether the lower courts properly concluded that Respondent satisfied the requirements for the issuance of permanent injunctive relief in this case, it is necessary first to address Petitioner's concern that the trial court did not possess subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case. The parties agree that Maryland courts, like courts generally in this country, have no authority to resolve religious disputes. Mt. Olive African Methodist Episcopal Church of Fruitland, Inc. v. Board of Incorporators, 348 Md. 299, 309, 703 A.2d 194, 199 (1997) (citing Polen v. Cox, 259 Md. 25, 31-32, 267 A.2d 201, 204-05 (1970)). Maryland courts have a legitimate interest, however, in resolving secular disputes, including those involving property interests or those requiring an interpretation of corporate charters or bylaws, through the application of neutral principles of law. See, e.g., Mt. Olive, 348 Md. at 310, 703 A.2d at 199; American Union of Baptists, Inc. v. Trustees of the Particular Primitive Baptist Church, 335 Md. 564, 644 A.2d 1063 (1994). The pith of Petitioner's argument in this regard is that it was improper for the trial court to settle this ecclesiastical dispute because it does not concern real or personal church property, but rather the rightful leadership of the Temple. In numerous pleadings and papers filed in the Circuit Court, however, Petitioner repeatedly asserted that all trust property, assets, and records should be placed in his immediate physical possession. [10] To this, we remind Petitioner that `[w]hen rights of property are involved ... the courts, of necessity, must proceed to consider and adjudicate those rights not only to solve the particular case and the rights of the litigants before them, but also to preserve definiteness and order in the holding of property by religious corporations.' Mt. Olive, 348 Md. at 310, 703 A.2d at 199. We therefore conclude it incongruous for Petitioner to argue that the dispute does not concern real or personal Temple property when he put the ownership or right to possession of such property in issue. [11] Petitioner also asserts that the Court of Special Appeals erred in resting its resolution of his subject matter jurisdictional challenge on the Temple's alleged proprietary interest in protecting its good name as a stable religious organization with an orderly mode of government and succession of leaders. Because the trial court's jurisdiction over this dispute stemmed from other proprietary interests, as we noted supra, we find it unnecessary to reach this issue.