Court Opinion

ID: 9901641
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 07:09:25.099378+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:36.211869
License: Public Domain

REVERSED and REMANDED, and Opinion Filed November 17, 2023

                                          S   In The
                                Court of Appeals
                         Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                     No. 05-23-00579-CV

     HAILERMARIAM TEKLEHAIMANOT, ABEDBA TEFERI,
     MULUGHETA BELAY, TEKLE HABTE, AND MENGESHA
               TESFAMARIAM, Appellants
                         V.
 MEDHANEALEM ERITREAN ORTHODOX TEWAHEDO CHURCH BY
      AND THROUGH ITS BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Appellee

                  On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court
                               Dallas County, Texas
                       Trial Court Cause No. DC-23-05213

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION
               Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Garcia
                          Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness
       In this interlocutory appeal, Appellants Hailermariam Teklehaimanot,

Abedba Teferi, Mulugheta Belay, Tekle Habte, and Mengesha Tesfamariam seek to

dissolve a temporary injunction order.1 Appellants are disputed members of the

board of trustees for Appellee Medhanealem Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church

(the Church). The trial court granted a temporary injunction enjoining Appellants

   1
        This case originated in the Dallas County 95th Judicial District Court. After the temporary
injunction order issued, the case was transferred to the Dallas County 116th Judicial District Court.
from, among other activities, excluding any Church members from any Church-

owned property. In four issues, Appellants contend the trial court abused its

discretion in granting the temporary injunction. We reverse and remand.

                                         BACKGROUND

        This case involves two opposing factions in the Church and a dispute as to the

rightful members of the Church’s board of trustees (the Board). Appellants were

elected to the Board at an annual meeting of the Church held on August 28, 2022.

Related to the internal strife, on November 16, 2022, the Board removed priest

Mussie Wolderufael (Mussie) for alleged disruptions and wrongdoings in the

Church. Four days later, on November 20, 2022, the Board received a letter from

one bishop purporting to excommunicate Appellants from the Church. That same

day, a different bishop from another diocese “welcomed and recognized” the Church

into its diocese. That bishop stated Appellants were “members in good religious

standing” of the Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church” and were members of the

“true and rightful Board of Trustees.”2

        Appellants claim after Mussie was terminated, he and some of his followers

broke into the Church on December 4, 2022, and took numerous items including

artifacts, books, records, and computers. Appellants claim the rival faction then held

an illegitimate meeting to elect a new Board. Appellants filed suit in the 116th District

    2
         The parties dispute the authority and legitimacy of each diocese and bishop, and the validity and
effect of the excommunication. We take no position on these issues or the rightful makeup of the Board.
                                                  –2–
Court of Dallas County to recover the stolen property and asked the court to declare

Appellants as the current members of the Board. The defendants in that case, a

faction of supporters for the Church here, filed a Rule 12 motion to show authority.

The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice.3

       Subsequently, the Church, by and through its new Board, filed this suit in the

95th District Court of Dallas County. The Church claimed Appellants restricted

access to the Church. The Church asserted various claims and sought a temporary

injunction against Appellants. The trial court conducted a hearing and later granted

the injunction. The order enjoined Appellants from, among other activities,

excluding any Church members from any Church-owned property. This appeal

followed.

                                STANDARD OF REVIEW

       A temporary injunction’s purpose is to preserve the status quo of the

litigation’s subject matter pending a trial on the merits. Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co.,

84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002). A temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy

and does not issue as a matter of right. Id. To obtain a temporary injunction, the

applicant must plead and prove: (1) a cause of action against the defendant; (2) a

probable right to the relief sought; and (3) a probable, imminent, and irreparable

   3
       We recently issued our opinion in that case, number 05-23-00250-CV, Medhanealem Eritrean
Orthodox Tewahedo Church by and through its Board of Trustees vs. Musise Dawit Negusse (aka Ngusse),
Solomon Mebrahtu Gebretnsai, Mussie Wolderufael, and Fisum Tesfai Tedla.
                                               –3–
injury in the interim. Id. We review a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a

temporary injunction for abuse of discretion. Id.

                                    ANALYSIS

      Appellants raise four issues on appeal. We address only those issues necessary

to our decision.

I.    Trial Court’s Jurisdiction

      In their first issue, Appellants contend the temporary injunction order is void

because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin Appellants from making a

religious determination as to persons admitted or excluded from the Church.

      The ecclesiastical abstention doctrine arises from the First Amendment’s Free

Exercise Clause. In re Episcopal Sch. of Dallas, Inc., 556 S.W.3d 347, 352 (Tex.

App.—Dallas 2017, orig. proceeding). The doctrine prevents secular courts from

reviewing disputes that would require an analysis of theological controversy, church

discipline, ecclesiastical government, or the conformity of the members of the

church to the standard of morals required. Id. at 352-53. “Although wrongs may exist

in the ecclesiastical setting, and although the administration of the church may be

inadequate to provide a remedy, the preservation of the free exercise of religion is

deemed so important a principle that it overshadows the inequities that may result

from its application.” Id. (quoting Williams v. Gleason, 26 S.W.3d 54, 59 (Tex.

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref’d)). Texas courts lack jurisdiction to

decide ecclesiastical matters. Retta v. Mekonen, 338 S.W.3d 72, 76 (Tex. App.—

                                        –4–
Dallas 2011, no pet.) (trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enjoin members

of church board of trustees from prohibiting persons from entering the church or

removing persons during worship services).

      The ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not bar courts from determining

certain property ownership issues. See Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth v. Episcopal

Church, 602 S.W.3d 417, 428 (Tex. 2020). Under the “neutral principles”

methodology, ownership of disputed property is determined by applying generally

applicable law and legal principles. Masterson v. Diocese of Nw. Texas, 422 S.W.3d

594, 603 (Tex. 2013). That application will usually include considering evidence

such as deeds to the properties, terms of the local church charter (including articles

of incorporation and by laws, if any), and relevant provisions of governing

documents of the general church. Id.

      Here, a portion of the temporary injunction order enjoins Appellants from

“excluding or opposing any Church Members from any property owned by the

Church . . . .” Appellants contend the trial court had no subject matter jurisdiction to

enjoin them from making a religious determination as to who is excluded or

admitted, relying on our Retta decision. The Church contends the dispute has nothing

to do with any spiritual decision by the Church to admit or exclude certain members

from worshipping; rather, the dispute is whether Appellant may exclude the Church

from its own property.

                                          –5–
      We acknowledge the underlying dispute may implicate the ecclesiastical

abstention doctrine and the trial court’s jurisdiction. To the extent the trial court’s

order involved a determination of ecclesiastical issues, the trial court lacked

jurisdiction to grant the injunction. But we need not decide the issue because the

order is void on its face, as explained below.

II.   The Temporary Injunction Order Does Not Comply With Rule 683

      In their third issue, Appellants contend the trial court’s order is void because

it does not strictly comply with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683.

      Rule 683 requires every order granting a temporary injunction to state the

reasons for its issuance and to be specific in its terms. TEX. R. CIV. P. 683. The

requirements of Rule 683 are mandatory and must be strictly followed. Indep. Cap.

Mgmt., L.L.C. v. Collins, 261 S.W.3d 792, 795 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.)

(citing Qwest Commc’ns Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334, 337 (Tex. 2000)

(per curiam)). If a temporary injunction order fails to comply with the requirements

of Rule 683, it is void. To comply with Rule 683, the trial court must set out in the

temporary injunction order the reasons it believes the applicant will suffer injury if

it does not grant the injunction. Id. (citing State v. Cook United, Inc., 464 S.W.2d

105, 106 (Tex. 1971)). The reasons must be specific and legally sufficient, and not

mere conclusory statements. Id. A trial court abuses its discretion by issuing a

temporary injunction order that does not comply with the requirements of Rule 683.

Id.

                                         –6–
      In Collins, we dissolved a temporary injunction that stated:

      in accordance with Section 65.011 of the TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE
      (a) Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief from this Court as a result
      of the actions committed by Defendants ICAP and ASSOCIATES, (b)
      Plaintiffs have a probable right to recover in this action, (c) Plaintiffs
      are suffering and will continue to suffer immediate and irreparable
      harm as a proximate result of the conduct of the Defendants ICAP and
      ASSOCIATES, (d) Plaintiffs have not [sic] adequate remedy at law, (e)
      action by the Court is necessary to preserve the status quo, and (f)
      Plaintiff's Motion request [sic] that a Temporary Injunction be issued,
      should be GRANTED.

Collins, 261 S.W.3d at 795-96. We held the order was conclusory, as it failed to

specify the reasons relied upon by the trial court and failed to identify the injuries

plaintiffs would suffer absent injunctive relief. Id.

      Here, the temporary injunction order states, in relevant part:

      Based on the pleadings and evidence on file, the Court finds immediate
      and irreparable harm will result to the Applicants before trial. Unless
      they are enjoined from doing so, it appears that Defendants will take
      actions that change the status quo of the parties and for which
      Applicants have no adequate remedy at law and which would result in
      irreparable harm to Applicants.

      As in Collins, the order merely sets out the elements necessary for injunctive

relief. It does not specify the facts the trial court relied on, making the trial court’s

findings conclusory. It also fails to identify the injury the Church will suffer if the

injunction does not issue. While the order details the acts enjoined, it fails to lay the

predicate for doing so, other than in conclusory fashion. At argument, counsel for

the Church acknowledged the order was deficient.

                                          –7–
      Because the order does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 683, the

temporary injunction is void. We sustain Appellants’ third issue. Because of our

determination, we need not address Appellants’ remaining issues.

                                   CONCLUSION

      The temporary injunction order fails to comply with Rule 683. Accordingly,

we reverse the order of the trial court, dissolve the temporary injunction, and remand

to the trial court for further proceedings.

                                              /Robbie Partida-Kipness/
                                              ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS
                                              JUSTICE
230579F.P05

                                          –8–
                                    S
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                   JUDGMENT

HAILERMARIAM                                   On Appeal from the 116th Judicial
TEKLEHAIMANOT, ABEDBA                          District Court, Dallas County, Texas
TEFERI, MULUGHETA BELAY,                       Trial Court Cause No. DC-23-05213.
TEKLE HABTE, AND                               Opinion delivered by Justice Partida-
MENGESHA TESFAMARIAM,                          Kipness. Justices Pedersen, III and
Appellants                                     Garcia participating.

No. 05-23-00579-CV           V.

MEDHANEALEM ERITREAN
ORTHODOX TEWAHEDO
CHURCH BY AND THROUGH ITS
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Appellee

       In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial
court is REVERSED and this cause is REMANDED to the trial court for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.

    It is ORDERED that appellants HAILERMARIAM TEKLEHAIMANOT,
ABEDBA TEFERI, MULUGHETA BELAY, TEKLE HABTE, AND
MENGESHA TESFAMARIAM recover their costs of this appeal from appellee
MEDHANEALEM ERITREAN ORTHODOX TEWAHEDO CHURCH BY AND
THROUGH ITS BOARD OF TRUSTEES.

Judgment entered this 17th day of November, 2023.

                                         –9–