Opinion ID: 2337086
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Neutral-principles approach

Text: We first address whether Arkansas should adopt the neutral principles of law approach under Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 99 S.Ct. 3020, 61 L.Ed.2d 775 (1979), and more specifically, whether the trial court failed to consider the 1984 amendment to the National Church constitution, and erred in ruling that the title to the church property remained in the local Palmetto congregation. Jones, supra , involved a dispute over the ownership of church property following a schism in a local church affiliated with the hierarchical church organization. The question for decision, said the Court, was whether civil courts, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, may resolve the dispute on the basis of `neutral principles of law,' or whether they must defer to the resolution of an authoritative tribunal of the hierarchical church. Id. The Supreme Court then determined that, when determining the resolution of issues outside the realm of religious doctrine of polity, the neutral principles of law approach should prevail. Id. This approach involves an examination of the following: (1) the language of the deeds; (2) the terms of the local church charters; (3) the state statutes governing the holding of church property, and (4) the provisions in the constitution of the general church concerning the ownership and control of church property. Id. The Court explained the rationale behind this neutral-principles approach: [I]t is completely secular in operation, and yet flexible enough to accommodate all forms of religious organization and polity. The method relies exclusively on objective, well-established concepts of trust and property law .... It thereby promises to free civil courts completely from entanglement in questions of religious doctrine, polity, and practice. Id. The Court then said that at least in general outline, the neutral principles of law approach is consistent with the foregoing principles. Id. The neutral-principles approach was approved in Maryland & Va. Eldership of Churches of God v. Church of God at Sharpsburg, 396 U.S. 367, 90 S.Ct. 499, 24 L.Ed.2d 582 (1970), where a state court settled a local church property dispute on the basis of the language of the deeds, the terms of the local church charters, the state statutes governing the holding of church property, and the provisions in the constitution of the general church concerning the ownership and control of church property. That approach entailed no inquiry into religious doctrine. Id. Other jurisdictions have adopted the neutral-principles approach. See Church of God in Christ, Inc. v. Graham, 54 F.3d 522 (8th Cir.1995); Presbytery of Elijah Parish Lovejoy v. Jaeggi, 682 S.W.2d 465 (Mo.1985). We now expressly adopt the neutralprinciples approach outlined by the United States Supreme Court in Jones, supra , as the appropriate means of resolving church property disputes. In Arkansas, we recognized the neutral-principles approach in Gipson v. Brown, 288 Ark. 422, 706 S.W.2d 369 (1986), when we stated: [S]tate courts can only become involved in church disputes when `neutral principles' of law can be applied to resolve the dispute. Id. We also acknowledged this approach in West v. Belin, 314 Ark. 40, 858 S.W.2d 97 (1993). However, we did not specifically outline the neutral-principles approach in either Gipson, supra , or West, supra . Because we have recognized this approach in prior case law, and because it has been approved by our United States Supreme Court, we expressly adopt the neutral-principles standard in order to reach the merits of this appeal.