Court Opinion

ID: 9588562
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:35:47.22718+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:00:59.055231
License: Public Domain

MILLER, Justice,
dissenting:
I find myself at odds with the majority and its use of Syllabus Points 1 and 2 of Board of Church Extension v. Eads, 159 W.Va. 943, 230 S.E.2d 911 (1976), to dispose of this case. These syllabus points do not give any guidelines, and when read with the majority opinion, suggest that once a court finds a church to be hierarchical in structure, it must defer to the decision of the church’s highest tribunal. The most recent decision on church property disputes by the United States Supreme Court clearly holds, however, that such deference is not required by the Constitution.
Under Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 99 S.Ct. 3020, 61 L.Ed.2d 775 (1979),1 the states are free to use any method of resolving church property disputes which does not require courts to decide questions of religious doctrine or polity. The compulsory deference approach of Eads is still constitutionally permissible, but it is now clear that it is not required. The majority’s failure to discuss or even cite Jones leads me to believe that it is unaware of the fact that this decision has given state courts more freedom in handling church property disputes. This lack of awareness may explain *594its continuing allegiance to Eads’ rather bland principles.
The majority relies on Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 96 S.Ct. 2372, 49 L.Ed.2d 151 (1976), which did not involve a property dispute between church members, but a procedural question concerning the removal of the Bishop of •the American-Canadian Diocese of the Serbian Orthodox Church by the Patriarchate in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. The Supreme Court found that the validity of his removal was essentially a religious dispute even though property matters were collaterally involved.
More pertinent to the case at hand is Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 99 S.Ct. 3020, 61 L.Ed.2d 775 (1979), which dealt with a schism between members of a local presby-terian church that belonged to the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS). A majority of the local members voted to withdraw from the PCUS and asserted control over the church property. A commission appointed by the PCUS hierarchy found that the minority faction constituted the “true congregation.”
The minority faction then brought suit to gain control over the local church’s property. However, the Georgia courts held under “neutral principles of law” that the majority faction was entitled to the church property. The United States Supreme Court approved the neutral principles approach, but vacated the judgment of the Georgia Supreme Court on the basis that it had not articulated the grounds for its decision.
In the course of its opinion, the Supreme Court sought to clarify the relationship of the freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment and the right of a state court to entertain a suit that seeks to settle title to church property.2 First, it recognized that while “the First Amendment prohibits civil courts from resolving church property disputes on the basis of religious doctrine and practice ... [it] does not dictate that a State must follow a particular method of resolving church property disputes.” 443 U.S. at 602, 99 S.Ct. at 3025, 61 L.Ed.2d at 784. The Court went on to reaffirm3 the “neutral principles of law approach” for “settling 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.” 443 U.S. at 603, 99 S.Ct. at 3025, 61 L.Ed.2d at 784.
It is important to note that the decision in Jones did not turn on identifying the nature of the church organization,4 but on determining whether the parent church had the right to control local property under *595general principles of trust and property law. In other words, Jones established that the First Amendment does not prohibit further inquiry once a court concludes that a church has been organized as a hierarchy. Under the neutral principles approach, a court may examine church documents, by-laws, deeds and other relevant material (other than doctrinal questions) in order to determine whether the parent church actually had control or ownership of the property prior to the schism or other controversy.
The neutral principles approach makes it easier to deal with cases where a denomination is not organized along purely hierarchical or congregational lines. The mixed nature of many churches has caused state courts to observe that the organization of a denomination may be hierarchical in some respects, and congregational in others. Atkins v. Walker, 284 N.C. 306, 200 S.E.2d 641 (1973); see Southside Tabernacle v. Pentecostal Church of God, Pacific NW Dt., 32 Wash.App. 814, 650 P.2d 231 (1982). Thus, a particular group of churches may be hierarchical for purposes of church membership, the resolution of doctrinal questions, and the discipline of church officials, and congregational for purposes of using and controlling property. Kelley v. Riverside Blvd. Ind. Church of God, 44 Ill.App.3d 673, 3 Ill.Dec. 298, 358 N.E.2d 696 (1976); Maryland & Virginia Eldership v. Sharpsburg, 249 Md. 650, 241 A.2d 691 (1968), vacated, 393 U.S. 528, 21 L.Ed.2d 750, 89 S.Ct. 850 (1969); Antioch Temple, Inc. v. Parekh, 383 Mass. 854, 422 N.E.2d 1337 (1981); Piletich v. Deretich, 328 N.W.2d 696 (Minn.1982); Dragelevich v. Rajsich, 24 Ohio App.2d 59, 263 N.E.2d 778 (1970); see Bennison v. Sharp, 121 Mich.App. 705, 329 N.W.2d 466 (1982); Struemph v. McAuliffe, 661 S.W.2d 559, 566 (Mo.Ct.App.1983) (“When the question is the right of control of property as distinguished from the vesting of title, the issue is resolved by a determination [that] the hierarchical structure of the church extends to the control of property.”); African Meth. Epis. Zion Church v. Union Chapel A.M.E. Zion Church, 64 N.C.App. 391, 308 S.E.2d 73, 87 (1983) (“[U]pon remand, the major question to be answered ... is whether the defendant local church was in fact in a hierarchical relationship with the parent body with respect to property matters.”).5
It is clear to me that the majority completely ignores the teaching of Jones. Moreover, it concludes that this case involves a hierarchical organization even though the record is virtually barren of any information concerning the relationship of the local church to the larger assembly known as the Church of God. The majority relies almost exclusively upon language in the corrective deed drafted after the schism occurred, because the trial court declined to take any evidence as to whether the Church of God was in fact a hierarchical church.
Even if it were hierarchical, under the neutral principles approach the court would still have to examine the relevant documents to ascertain whether the Church of God did in fact control the local church’s property prior to the schism. Like the United States Supreme Court in Jones, I would remand the case for further factual development in accordance with the principles set out in Jones.
I, therefore, respectfully dissent.

. Jones v. Wolf has generated a considerable amount of scholarly commentary. See, e.g., Adams and Hanlan, Jones v. Wolf: Church Autonomy and the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, 128 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1291 (1980); Sirico, The Constitutional Dimensions of Church Property Disputes, 59 Wash. U.L.Q. 1 (1981); Comment, Church Property Disputes: The Trend and the Alternative, 31 Mercer L.Rev. 559 (1980); Note, Church Property Disputes in the Age of "Common-Core Protestantism": A Legislative Facts Rationale for Neutral Principles of Law, 57 Ind.L.J. 163 (1982).

. The applicable portion of the First Amendment is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
In Brady v. Reiner, 157 W.Va. 10, 198 S.E.2d 812 (1973), overruled on other grounds, Board of Church Extension v. Eads, 159 W.Va. 943, 230 S.E.2d 911 (1976), we traced in considerable detail the history of this portion of the First Amendment. We recognized that this clause was binding on the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as a result of Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America, 344 U.S. 94, 116, 73 S.Ct. 143, 154-55, 97 L.Ed. 120, 136-37 (1952). In Syllabus Point 1 of Brady, we said:
"The West Virginia Constitution, Article III, Section 15 and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution absolutely forbid civil governments, either through judicial decision or legislative enactment, from interfering in church doctrine or practice — a matter of religious freedom, or from ‘establishing’ a church or form of church government to the detriment of another religious belief or organization.”

. The legitimacy of this approach was previously recognized in Maryland and Virginia Eldership of the Churches of God v. Church of God at Sharpsburg, Inc., 396 U.S. 367, 90 S.Ct. 499, 24 L.Ed.2d 582 (1970); Presbyterian Church in the United States v. Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440, 89 S.Ct. 601, 21 L.Ed.2d 658 (1969).

. This was the primary point of difference with the dissent which asserted that the PCUS was hierarchical and, therefore, controlled the local church’s property. The dissent's position on whether a neutral inquiry can be made to determine if there are any specific provisions in the general church’s documents regarding its control over a local church’s property is ambiguous:
"A careful examination of the constitutions of the general and local church, as well as *595other relevant documents, may be necessary to ascertain the form of governance adopted by the members of the religious association. But there is no reason to restrict the courts to statements of polity related directly to church property. For the constitutionally necessary limitations are imposed not on the evidence to be considered but instead on the object of the inquiry, which is both limited and clear: the civil court must determine whether the local church remains autonomous, so that its members have unreviewable authority to withdraw it (and its property) from the general church, or whether the local church is inseparably integrated into and subordinate to the general church.” 443 U.S. at 619-20, 99 S.Ct. at 3034, 61 L.Ed.2d at 795. (Footnote omitted)

. The distinction between hierarchical and congregational church structures as a means of resolving church property disputes between the local church and the general church body was initially recognized in Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679, 20 L.Ed. 666 (1871).