Court Opinion

ID: 9719480
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:54:09.230203+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:07.654106
License: Public Domain

BENHAM, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
1. Because I do not believe this appeal falls within this Court’s subject-matter appellate jurisdiction over “[a]ll equity cases” (1983 Ga. Const., Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. Ill (2)), I believe the appeal should be transferred to the Court of Appeals, which has appellate jurisdiction of cases in which jurisdiction has not been conferred upon this Court by the Georgia Constitution. 1983 Ga. Const., Art. VI, Sec. V, Par. III. Accordingly, I respectfully disagree with Division 1 of the per curiam opinion.
For purposes of determining appellate jurisdiction,
“[e]quity cases” are those in which a substantive issue on appeal involves the legality or propriety of equitable relief sought in the superior court — whether that relief was granted or denied. Cases in which the grant or denial of such [equitable] relief was merely ancillary to the underlying issues of law, or would have been a matter of routine once the underlying issues of law were resolved are not “equity cases.”
Beauchamp v. Knight, 261 Ga. 608 (1) (409 SE2d 208) (1991). Where equitable relief routinely follows upon the determination of legal issues, “there is no question of ‘the legality or propriety of equitable relief’ and the case is not one in equity.” Lamar County v. E.T. Carlyle Co., 277 Ga. 690 (1) (594 SE2d 335) (2004). Stated another way, this Court’s equity appellate jurisdiction depends upon a substantive issue involving the legality or propriety of equitable relief; however, there exists no question of the legality or propriety of *335equitable relief that invokes this Court’s equity jurisdiction when the equitable relief at issue is merely ancillary to the determination of the issues of law.
The equitable relief awarded in this case — removal of the names of the local church and its trustees from bank accounts, mortgages, insurance policies, and the like — flows directly from the legal determination that the national church, pursuant to church discipline, owns the real and personal property at issue and the local church holds said property in trust for the national church. Since the equitable relief routinely follows upon the determination of the legal issue, “there is no question of ‘the legality or propriety of equitable relief’ and the case is not one in equity.” Lamar County v. E.T. Carlyle Co., supra, 277 Ga. 690 (1). The approach of Division 1 of the per curiam opinion — that a litigant’s allegation of error with regard to the trial court’s grant or denial of ancillary equitable relief removes the case from the Court of Appeals’s appellate jurisdiction and reinstates the case as an equity case invoking this Court’s appellate jurisdiction — up-ends this Court’s 20-year effort, from Beauchamp v. Knight, supra, in 1991 to Reeves v. Newman, 287 Ga. 317 (695 SE2d 626) (2010) in 2010, “to delineate as clearly as possible the scope of its jurisdiction over ‘equity cases.’ ” Redfearn v. Huntcliff Homes Assn., 271 Ga. 745 (1) (524 SE2d 464) (1999). The majority’s approach smudges the bright-line rule this Court has been buffing to a sheen and enables a litigant to select the appellate forum in which a case with equitable features is to be heard, a practice this Court rejected in Beauchamp v. Knight, supra, 261 Ga. at 609, and in Krystal Co. v. Carter, 256 Ga. 43, 44 (343 SE2d 490) (1986). Just as we have transferred to the Court of Appeals those appeals in hierarchical church disputes that do not invoke this Court’s appellate jurisdiction over cases involving title to land (compare, e.g., Body of Christ Overcoming Church of God v. Brinson, 285 Ga. 613 (680 SE2d 856) (2009) (petition to quiet title); First Christ Holiness Church v. Owens Temple First Christ Holiness Church, 282 Ga. 883 (655 SE2d 605) (2008) (petition to quiet title)) because the equitable relief granted or denied by the trial court is ancillary to the underlying legal issue of whether it is the local church or the national church that has the right to control the local church property, so, too, we should transfer this appeal to the Court of Appeals since this Court’s equity jurisdiction is not invoked. See, e.g., The Rector &c. of Christ Church v. Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Ga., 305 Ga. App. 87 (699 SE2d 45) (2010) (cert. granted); Timberridge Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery of Greater Atlanta, 307 Ga. App. 191 (705 SE2d 262) (2010) (transferred to the Court of Appeals by this Court); St. Mary’s of Egypt Orthodox Church v. Townsend, 243 Ga. App. 188 (532 SE2d 731) (2000) (transferred by *336this Court to the Court of Appeals).
Decided November 30, 2010
Reconsideration denied December 14, 2010.
Thomas A. Nash, Jr., for appellants.
Grady K. Reddick, Edwards & Youmas, Brenda C. Youmas, for appellees.
2. Because I agree with the per curiam opinion’s determination that the trial court correctly ruled that the real property at issue is held by Williams Chapel in trust for the national AME Church, I concur in Divisions 2-4.
I am authorized to state that Justice Thompson joins me in concurring in part and dissenting in part, and Justice Hines joins me in dissenting to Division 1 of the per curiam opinion.