Opinion ID: 2505697
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Jones v. Wolf

Text: In Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 99 S.Ct. 3020, 61 L.Ed.2d 775 (1979), the United States Supreme Court addressed a church property dispute involving the Vineville Presbyterian Church of Macon, Georgia. This is notable because Jones dealt with Georgia law, and with its decision, Jones gave Georgia and other states the right to choose whether to use one of several possible approaches to resolving church property disputes between local churches and parent churches. One constitutionally permissible approach when adjudicating church property disputes was the neutral principles of law approach, which involved no consideration of doctrinal matters. Jones, 443 U.S. at 602, 99 S.Ct. 3020. After upholding the constitutionality of the neutral principles approach, the United States Supreme Court sent this case back to the Supreme Court of Georgia to choose what method Georgia would use in resolving church property disputes. Id. at 609-610, 99 S.Ct. 3020. The goal was to allow the church to examine certain documents called neutral principles of law, including 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 before the dispute arose in order to ensure that the dispute would be resolved in accord with the desires of the members. Jones, 443 U.S. at 603-604, 99 S.Ct. 3020. On remand, the Supreme Court of Georgia adopted a presumptive rule of majority representation, defeasible upon a showing that the identity of the local church is to be determined by some other means. Jones, 244 Ga. at 388(2), 260 S.E.2d 84, quoting Jones, 443 U.S. at 607, 99 S.Ct. 3020. The Supreme Court of Georgia further held that the presumption [of majority rule] is overcome under Georgia law by an application of what has come to be known as `neutral principles' of law that is, `state statutes, corporate charters, relevant deeds, and the organizational constitutions of the denomination.' Jones, 244 Ga. at 388(2), 260 S.E.2d 84, quoting Crumbley v. Solomon, 243 Ga. 343, 343, 254 S.E.2d 330 (1979). As applied in this case, CCS, as the majority faction, is the presumptive winner of this church property dispute unless the neutral principles say otherwise, which they do not as discussed infra. The practical idea behind the neutral principles approach was that churches, whether local or national, could review applicable state statutes, relevant deeds, corporate charters, and provisions in the church constitution and decide before a dispute arose whether the majority faction controlled the church property or not. If a local church such as CCS looked at its documents and decided it would win a legal contest with the National Church, then CCS would have no need to take any action. It could rest on the result forecast by neutral principles, as interpreted by local lawyers, knowledgeable about interpreting deeds, state statutes, corporate charters, and national church constitutions, who advised the local church who would win. If the forecast after reviewing said neutral principles indicated that the local church or the national church would lose a church property dispute, Jones set out the possible remedies. The forecasted losing party could take steps that would allow them to prevail, assuming that the losing party could obtain the cooperation of other interested parties. According to Jones, the forecasted losing party could modify the deeds or the corporate charter to include a right of reversion or trust in favor of the general church. Jones, 443 U.S. at 606, 99 S.Ct. 3020. Alternatively, the constitution of the general church can be made to recite an express trust in favor of the denominational church. Id. In this case, the National Church did not attempt to recite an express trust in the general church constitution, but it instead chose to enact the Dennis Canon, a mere bylaw. Why? Did the National Church realize that it could not pass a constitutional amendment or convince CCS to modify its local corporate charter but that it could enact a bylaw, such as, the Dennis Canon? Regardless, the fact is that the National Church did not adopt any of the possible remedies identified in Jones. Because the National Church failed to modify the neutral principles, there is nothing in those neutral principles to overcome the presumption that CCS, as the undisputed majority faction, retains control over its property.