Opinion ID: 2505697
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Distinguishing Bylaws from Church Constitutional Provisions

Text: In this case, the parties agree that the Dennis Canon is most analogous to a bylaw, rather than a constitutional provision of the National Church. One obvious reason for the United States Supreme Court relying in relevant part on the provisions in the constitution of the general church concerning the ownership and control of church property, Jones, 443 U.S. at 603, 99 S.Ct. 3020, rather than relying on mere bylaws like the Dennis Canon is that constitutions typically have more rigid rules and requirements governing formation and amendment. Therefore, it seems perfectly reasonable that the United States Supreme Court insisted that any authorization for an alleged trust appear in the provisions of the National Church's constitution or another recognized neutral principle, rather than in its mere bylaws. In light of Jones, I would conclude that the Dennis Canon is a mere bylaw of the National Church. Furthermore, because CCS alleges that the National Church enacted the Dennis Canon by deceitful means including, but not limited to, the National Church preventing the local church from knowing in advance that there would be a vote on the Dennis Canon at the 1979 General Convention, CCS claims to have been deceived into not attending or participating in the political process surrounding the enactment of the Dennis Canon. If CCS was deceitfully prevented from using its vote and influence to defeat enactment of this canon, the Dennis Canon should not be allowed by a court of equity to create a trust on CCS's property. See OCGA § 23-1-10 (He who would have equity must do equity and must give effect to all equitable rights of the other party respecting the subject matter of the action.); see also OCGA § 23-1-12 (The equity of a party who has been misled is superior to that of the person who willfully misleads such party.). Because CCS already had full and absolute title in the subject property, any interest that the National Church now claims in the property, the National Church must claim subject to CCS's preexisting legal and equitable interest. I understand that there is some evidence on the record that CCS did have a member attend the 1979 General Convention. However, it does not appear that Judge Brannen attended the 1979 General Convention on behalf of CCS as its official representative. Rather, it appears that Judge Brannen may have attended the 1979 General Convention on behalf of the diocese, at least according to CCS. Absent a more fully developed record, I would not resolve this issue without first permitting a jury to hear all of the admissible evidence and resolve this apparent factual dispute.