Opinion ID: 2505697
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Effect of Church Governing Documents.

Text: Having reviewed the governing documents of the local church and the general church, we conclude, as did the trial court and the Court of Appeals before us, that a trust on Christ Church's property in favor of the Episcopal Church existed well before the dispute erupted that resulted in this litigation (and thus well before the 2006 corporate Articles of Amendment were filed). We need not decide whether the Episcopal Church had a trust on each parcel of real estate at issue at the moment it was obtained, nor if the neutral principles would have shown a trust on the property in 1823, 1918, 1981, or any other earlier time. Instead, we consider the record evidence of the `the intentions of the parties' at the local and national level regarding beneficial ownership of the property at issue as expressed `before the dispute erupt(ed)' in a `legally cognizable form.' Timberridge, 290 Ga. at ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (quoting Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. at 603, 606, 99 S.Ct. 3020). In doing so, we need not rely exclusively on the Dennis Canon. Instead, we consider the canon as onealthough a strong oneof the many indications that Christ Church holds its property in trust for its parent church. [17] In other words, like the highest courts of other states, we view the Dennis Canon as making explicit that which had always been implicit in the discipline of the Episcopal Church (and the Church of England before it), as shown in the documents setting forth, in legally cognizable and non-religious terms, the property-related rules and the relative authority of Christ Church, the Georgia Diocese, and the Episcopal Church, as well as the parties' understanding of them as revealed by their course of conduct. See, e.g., Rector, Wardens & Vestrymen of Trinity-Saint Michael's Parish, Inc. v. Episcopal Church in Diocese of Conn., 224 Conn. 797, 620 A.2d 1280, 1292 (1993) ([T]he Dennis Canon adopted in 1979 merely codified in explicit terms a trust relationship that has been implicit in the relationship between local parishes and dioceses since the founding of [Episcopal Church] in 1789.); Episcopal Church Cases, 45 Cal.4th 467, 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 275, 198 P.3d 66, 81-81 (2009) (Moreover, [the Dennis Canon] is consistent with earlier enacted canons that, although not using the word `trust,' impose substantial limitations on the local parish's use of church property and give the higher church authorities substantial authority over that property.). CCS and the dissent characterize this dispute as the Episcopal Church trying to take Christ Church's property. We disagree with that view of the record and the law. The First Amendment allows CCS and its members to leave the Episcopal Church and worship as they please, like all other Americans, but it does not allow them to take with them property that has for generations been accumulated and held by a constituent church of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. Our conclusion regarding the effect of the governing documents of the local and general church in this case is consistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent, this Court's prior cases, and the decisions of several other state supreme courts. See, e.g., Barber, 274 Ga. at 359, 552 S.E.2d 90 (In this case, it is undisputed that the [parent church] remains a hierarchy, that the [local church] has been a member of the [parent church] for over 30 years, and that the [local church] is subject to the [parent church]'s discipline. Such discipline unquestionably provides that the [parent church] `shall hold all church property,' thereby implying a trust for the benefit of the [parent church]. And this is irrespective of the [local church's] continuing membership in the [parent church]. (citations and footnotes omitted)); Gauss, 302 Conn. 408, 28 A.3d at 321 (noting that the highest courts of several other jurisdictions also have concluded that the Dennis Canon applies to defeat claims of ownership and control over parish property by disaffected parish members, even in cases in which record title to the property has been held in the name of the parish since before enactment of the provision (citing Episcopal Church Cases, 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 275, 198 P.3d at 79-81; Harnish, 870 N.Y.S.2d 814, 899 N.E.2d at 924-925; and In re Church of St. James the Less, 585 Pa. 428, 888 A.2d 795, 807-809 (2005))). CCS relies heavily on this Court's decision in the Ga. District Council of Assemblies of God case, where we held that the local church property was not held in trust for the general church. See 267 Ga. at 61, 472 S.E.2d 66. But there the denomination's bylaws stated that each local church `shall have the right to acquire and hold title to property, either through trustees or in its corporate name as a self-governing unit,' `the fact that a local assembly is affiliated in the association of the District or General Council shall in no wise destroy its rights as above stated or interfere with its sovereignty,' and `affiliated churches are deemed to be sovereign, autonomous, and self-determining bodies.' Id. at 61, n. 2, 472 S.E.2d 66. Here, the bylaws of the Episcopal Church state exactly the opposite, and, along with the other neutral principles, lead to the opposite result. The juxtaposition of the two cases also illustrates that, despite the dissent's lament, the result of neutral principles analysis by this Court is not pre-ordained but instead depends on the title instruments, applicable statutes, and general and local church governing documents at issue in the particular case. Finally, the South Carolina decision on which CCS relies is readily distinguishable, and it has not been followed in a church property case by any court outside that state. [18] 2. As in Timberridge, ___ Ga. at ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, the resolution of this church property dispute in the general church's favor does not rest on the mere connectional relationship between a local and general church. Carnes, 236 Ga. at 35, 222 S.E.2d 322. Instead, our decision derives from the specific provisions of the governing documents adopted by the local and national churches, supported by the policy reflected in OCGA §§ 14-5-46 and 14-5-47 and not contradicted by the title instruments at issue. Our decision is based on the sort of legal materials that are familiar to lawyers and judges and embodied in legally cognizable form, and it has nothing to do with the religious doctrine of the denomination or the local congregation. Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. at 603, 606, 99 S.Ct. 3020. In the end, it is fair to say, as the trial court did, that Christ Church can no more shrug off the trust, than the National Church could unilaterally impose it. The trust has historical roots going back to the English church and the founding of the Episcopal church in this country. Christ Church got the benefit of its bargain with the National Church for many years. The National Church has the right to insist on its part of the bargain as well. Like the trial court and the Court of Appeals, we conclude that neutral principles of law demonstrate that an implied trust in favor of the Episcopal Church exists on the property of Christ Church. See Timberridge, 290 Ga. at ___ - ___, ___ S.E.2d ___; Barber, 274 Ga. at 359, 552 S.E.2d 90; Crumbley, 243 Ga. at 345, 254 S.E.2d 330. Judgment affirmed. HUNSTEIN, C.J., BENHAM, THOMPSON, HINES, and MELTON, JJ., concur. Judge S. PHILLIP BROWN dissents. CARLEY, P.J., not participating. BROWN, Judge, dissenting.