Court Opinion

ID: 9953570
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-22 14:23:37.938985+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:02.066848
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Re: New Central Baptist                       :
Church, Non Profit Organization                  :   No. 1079 C.D. 2022
                                                 :   Submitted: October 10, 2023
Appeal of: New Central Baptist                   :
Church                                           :

BEFORE:        HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
               HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge
               HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE DUMAS                                                       FILED: March 22, 2024
               New Central Baptist Church (Church) appeals from the decree entered
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Orphans’ Court Division
(orphans’ court), which invalidated the votes (1) electing trustees at two Church
elections and (2) removing Church’s pastor. On appeal, Church challenges the
orphans’ court reasoning. We vacate and remand for further proceedings.
                                     I. BACKGROUND1
               Church was incorporated as a nonprofit organization and is subject to
certain bylaws.2 Orphans’ Ct. Op., 6/7/22, at 2. For example, the Bylaws provide
       1
           We state the facts as presented by the orphans’ court opinion to the extent they “are
supported by competent and adequate evidence.” In re Est. of Plance, 175 A.3d 249, 259 (Pa.
2017) (emphasis added). “In determining whether the findings of the orphans’ court are supported
by competent evidence, we must take as true all the evidence supporting the findings and all
reasonable inferences therefrom.” Id. (cleaned up). Further, the orphans’ court resolves credibility
and any conflicts in testimony. Id. at 259-60. We also cite to the Pennsylvania Rule of Civil
Procedure 236 notice dates. The record does not reflect any challenge or objection to the accuracy
of the trial transcripts.
         The orphans’ court, however, did not always cite to the record in support of its findings.
See id. Instead, the orphans’ court occasionally quoted or paraphrased the parties’ pleadings, which
we discuss below.
         2
           Precisely, Church is governed by a document titled “Constitution & By Laws.” Trial Ex.
P-2 (Bylaws). The Bylaws occasionally duplicated enumeration, e.g., there are two Article II(C)
that trustees “are the legal representatives of the church,” and “are elected annually
by the church . . . .”3 Bylaws, at Art. II & II(C. Trustees). The trustees “shall be
elected by aye or nay except where declared to be otherwise (ballot, rising or show
of hands).” Id. at Art. VII(A). The trustees’ power “shall be exercised only by the
majority voting, present at the church meeting.” Id. at Art. II(C. Trustees).4
               As for church meetings, the Bylaws do not require a quorum for any
non-business meeting. See generally id. For any business meeting, however, the
Bylaws require a quorum of 40 people.5 Id. at Art. VIII(C).
               Finally, as for terminating the employment of the pastor, the Bylaws
provide that the “term of office may be ended upon ninety (90) days[’] notice on the
part of the Pastor or the Church.” Id. at Art. II(C. Termination of Pastorate).
               In 2010, Church hired Reverend Bernard Reaves, Sr., as Church’s
pastor. Orphans’ Ct. Op. at 2. In 2016, Church members “grew dissatisfied with the
governance and management,” which resulted in a disputed 2018 election of the
trustees. Id. at 2-3. In August 2018, Church members convened and “purportedly
elected” four members as trustees, which included Claudia Sherrod. Id. at 3; N.T.
Hr’g, 12/15/21, at 49-50. Reverend Reaves disputed the election and claimed that the

sections: one addressing the term of office of the pastor and the other addressing trustees. The
Bylaws also refer to the Hiscox Guide for Baptist Churches and the Standard Manual for Baptist
Churches “as its rule or order,” but no party addressed those documents. The Charter for Church
also stated that the Charter complied with the existing law governing nonprofit corporations. See
Ex. P-1; see also Notes of Testimony (N.T.) Hr’g, 12/15/21, at 184 (moving all exhibits into
evidence).
        3
          The parties do not dispute that the term “church” appears to refer to the members of the
church.
        4
          Although the Bylaws state that trustees must be elected annually, the Bylaws also state
that “as many trustees will be appointed as deemed necessary.” Bylaws, at Art. II(C. Trustees). It
appears the Bylaws may equate the term “appointed” with “elected.”
        5
          In its motion for reconsideration, Church asserted that “a quorum of 40 members would
far exceed a majority of members and thus make it virtually impossible for a quorum to ever be
reached and for any business to . . . be conducted.” Mot. for Reconsid., 1/3/22, at 6 n.1.

                                                2
trustees instead consisted of only two other members: Maurice Brown and Michelle
Martin. Orphans’ Ct. Op. at 3.
               The parties’ dispute regarding the trustees impacted Church’s control
over its bank accounts. Id. After the disputed 2018 election, the newly elected
trustees successfully requested the bank to add them and Church’s deacons as
authorized signers on the bank accounts. Id.; N.T. Hr’g, 12/15/21, at 50. That request
was relatively short lived, as Brown allegedly visited the bank, removed them as
authorized signers, and had the bank “designate himself and Michelle Martin as
authorized signers . . . .” Orphans’ Ct. Op. at 3;6 see also N.T. Hr’g, 12/15/21, at 53.
               In February 2019, Church members convened and voted to dismiss
Reverend Reaves as the pastor. Orphans’ Ct. Op. at 4. A few weeks later, the trustees
and deacons purportedly ratified the members’ termination vote. See id.7 The parties
dispute the legitimacy of the February 2019 vote. Church believes Reverend Reaves
was terminated as pastor but “has continued to receive” a Church salary. Id.
               In July 2019, the trustees and deacons notified Reverend Reaves of the

       6
           Brown did not testify that he visited the bank and removed the trustees. See N.T. Hr’g,
12/15/21, at 184-93. As noted herein, the orphans’ court did not always cite to the evidence of record
in support of its findings. Instead, the orphans’ court apparently restated an allegation in Church’s
petition. Compare Orphans’ Ct. Op. at 3 (“During January 2019, Respondent, Maurice Brown,
visited PNC Bank and had PNC Bank to [sic] designate himself and Michelle Martin as authorized
signers for [Church’s] bank accounts and to [sic] remove the Trustees and Deacons as authorized
signers.”), with Pet., 1/22/20, ¶ 22 (“[O]n or around January 2019, Brown visited PNC Bank and
convinced PNC Bank to designate himself and Martin as authorized signers for [Church’s] bank
accounts and to remove the Trustees and Deacons as authorized signers.”).
         7
           The orphans’ court did not cite to any evidence of record in support of this finding.
Compare Orphans’ Ct. Op. at 4 (“On March 11, 2019, the Trustees and Deacons jointly approved
and ratified the membership’s vote to terminate Reverend Reaves as pastor of [Church].”), with
Pet., 1/22/20, ¶ 33 (“On March 11, 2019, the Trustees and Deacons jointly approved and ratified the
membership’s vote to terminate Rev. Reaves as pastor of the Church.”). See generally N.T. Hr’g,
12/15/21 to 12/16/21 (reflecting no corroborative testimony about joint approval and ratification);
Reaves Resp. to Interrog., 12/3/21, ¶ 18 (responding “Yes” to the interrogatory about whether the
March 11, 2019 vote was invalid).

                                                  3
upcoming annual election of the trustees.8 Id. The parties dispute whether all
Church members were properly notified of the upcoming election. Id. In August
2019, the members reelected the four members they had voted for in August 2018.
Id. Reverend Reaves again disputed the results of this election. Id.
                   Church filed a petition in orphans’ court requesting a decree validating,
inter alia, (1) the August 2018 and 2019 elections and votes for the trustees; and (2)
the February 2019 votes removing Reverend Reaves as the pastor. Pet. for Citation,
1/22/20, ¶ 58; Pet. for Reissuance of Citation, 6/30/20, ¶ 15; accord Church’s Br. at
43. The orphans’ court held a trial.
                   In relevant part, Sherrod testified that a quorum of members was
present at the August 2018 trustee election. N.T. Hr’g, 12/15/21, at 45. Sherrod was
asked “approximately how many members were required to reach a quorum,” and
she responded: “Eight.” Id. at 45, 91 (stating that eight “votes are needed to elect or
reject a trustee”); see also id. at 136 (reflecting another witness’s testimony that a
quorum was present at the 2018 election); id. at 169 (same).9
                   In response to the question of “how many active members . . . were
eligible” to vote, Sherrod responded “[w]e had about 26 or 27 people and we had 3
absentee ballots.” Id. at 45, 90; accord Ex. P-9 (reflecting 26 members on the “sign-
in sheet” for the August 2018 trustees’ election). But of the three absentee ballots,
one person came to the actual election, “so that absentee ballot didn’t count.” N.T.
Hr’g, 12/15/21, at 45. Sherrod testified that the members “overwhelmingly” voted
for the trustees. Id. at 47; accord Exs. P-10, P-12.10

          8
              The parties did not explain why they notified Reverend Reaves if he was no longer the
pastor.
          Sherrod did not testify about why eight members constituted a quorum. See also N.T.
          9

Hr’g, 12/15/21, at 91 (repeatedly testifying that eight votes were needed to elect or reject a trustee).
        10
           Exhibit P-10 included 24 ballots. Each ballot listed four names, with three blank lines

                                                   4
               With respect to the February 2019 vote to dismiss Reverend Reaves,
Sherrod, Glenda Ransom, and Bruce Canady testified that a quorum of members
attended the meeting. N.T. Hr’g, 12/15/21, at 56, 156-57 (testifying that in 2019, “the
quorum was 13 and there were 19 votes”), 171; see also Ex. P-14 (listing 21 signatures
on the sign-in sheet). Sherrod and Ransom testified that 19 members voted to dismiss
Reverend Reaves. N.T. Hr’g, 12/15/21, at 58, 156.
               As for the August 2019 election of trustees, Sherrod also testified that a
quorum of members attended the election. Id. at 66. Sherrod did not recall how
many members attended, but the result of that election was that the four 2018 trustees
were reelected. Id. at 66-67.
               Following the trial, the orphans’ court denied Church’s petition.
Decree, 1/5/22.11      In support, the orphans’ court began by quoting Sherrod’s
testimony regarding whether a quorum of members was present at each trustees’
election. Orphans’ Ct. Op. at 10-11.12 The orphans’ court concluded that “there was
for “write-in” candidates, and next to each name or blank line was a “Y” or “N”. See Ex. P-10.
        No witness testified about the actual votes or how to resolve ambiguous votes.
Nevertheless, of the 24 ballots, 18 ballots reflect a unanimous vote for the disputed trustees based
on discernable “circles” around each “Y”. Three ballots reflect a “Y” vote for less than four of the
trustees. The remaining ballots had ambiguous markings over the “Y”, e.g., handwritten slash
marks over the “Y”.
        Exhibit P-12 was a letter addressed to Brown and Martin stating that 24 “voters voted which
gave a majority vote” to the newly elected trustees and that of the 8 “people supporting” Reverend
Reaves, only one voted. See Ex. P-12. Although Church moved this letter into evidence, the parties
did not attempt to harmonize the letter with other evidence and testimony suggesting a different
number of votes. Church also moved an April 2019 letter into evidence, which is a letter from
Sherrod to the bank. See Ex. P-13. In relevant part, it states that “a quorum of the membership”
was present at the August 2018 election. Id.
        11
           The decree was signed on December 28, 2021, and docketed on December 29, 2021, but
the Rule 236 notice was given on January 5, 2022 (although the Rule 236 notice itself was also
docketed on December 29, 2021). Pa.R.Civ.P. 236.
        12
           The orphans’ court slightly misquoted the transcript. The orphans’ court purports to
quote counsel’s question as follows: “So how many active members who were eligible to
participate in the election were there at that time, 10 roughly?” Orphans’ Ct. Op. at 10. The actual

                                                 5
no testimony presented at trial as to the exact number of members present” at the
disputed elections. Id. at 11. Further, the court opined that “the number of members
present at the time of either of the purported elections . . . were not equal to or greater
than the numbers that were likely required to reach a majority at the time of either
election.” Id.
               Specifically, with respect to the August 2018 election, the orphans’ court
opined that “the number of total votes was 29 or 30 and thus, the number required
for a majority vote would have been” either 15 or 16. Id. at 11. Per the orphans’ court,
Sherrod “then testified that the number required to conduct an election in accordance
with the Bylaws was 8 votes.” Id. (cleaned up). The court held that Sherrod’s
testimony “showed there was an insufficient number of votes to obtain a majority of
votes, and thus for the election to have been conducted in accordance with the
Bylaws . . . .” Id. at 11-12.13 Church timely appealed and timely filed a court-ordered
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.14

transcript reflects that “10” is the line number on the transcript page and was not spoken by counsel.
N.T. Hr’g, 12/15/21, at 45. To the extent the misquoted question implied an answer, we correct the
typo.
        13
           As discussed herein, the orphans’ court misstated Sherrod’s testimony. For example,
Sherrod did not testify that the Bylaws required eight votes. See N.T. Hr’g, 12/15/21, at 45, 91; see
generally Bylaws. The orphans’ court also disregarded or overlooked Sherrod’s testimony that
“one person came, so that absentee ballot didn’t count.” Orphans’ Ct. Op. at 11 (quoting N.T. Hr’g,
12/15/21, at 45). In other words, the total number of votes was 28 or 29, and not 29 or 30. Compare
N.T. Hr’g, 12/15/21, at 45, with Orphans’ Ct. Op. at 11. Finally, in addition to misstating Sherrod’s
testimony, the orphans’ court did not discuss (a) the 2018 election meeting sign-in sheet, which
reflects 26 attendees; (b) the existence of 24 ballots; and (c) a majority of those ballots voting in
favor of four trustees, i.e., not Brown and Martin.
        14
           Church did not have to file a post-trial motion, and entry of judgment was unnecessary.
See Pa.O.R.C.P. 8.1 (prohibiting post-trial motions to any decree); Pa.R.A.P. 342(a)(8) (explaining
that an appeal may be taken as of right from an orphans’ court order that complies with Pa.R.A.P.
341). We add that Church filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court did not resolve
prior to Church’s timely appeal.

                                                  6
                                          II. ISSUES
               Church raises three issues. First, whether the orphans’ court erred by
invalidating the votes at the August 2018 and August 2019 elections for the Board of
Trustees. Church’s Br. at 4. Second, whether the orphans’ court abused its discretion
by invalidating, for improper notice, the February 2019 meeting terminating the
employment of Reverend Reaves as Church’s pastor. Id. Third, whether the
orphans’ court erred by essentially preserving the status quo when equity required
overlooking any technical violations of Church’s Bylaws. Id. at 4-5.
                                     III. DISCUSSION15
                        A. The 2018 and 2019 Trustees’ Elections
               Before summarizing Church’s argument, we briefly recap Sherrod’s
testimony to provide context. Sherrod testified that about 26 or 27 people were
present at the August 2018 election. See N.T. Hr’g, 12/15/21, at 45; accord Ex. P-9
(listing 26 members on the sign-in sheet for the August 2018 meeting); Ex. P-10
(compilation of 24 ballots).
               In support of its initial issue, Church begins by assailing the orphans’
court’s reasoning. Church’s Br. at 24. In Church’s view, the orphans’ court
incorrectly found an insufficient number of votes. Id. Per Church, the orphans’ court
relied on a Bylaw that provides that trustees “must be elected annually . . . by a
majority vote.” Id. (citation omitted). Church argues, however, that the Bylaws do
not “actually specify the number of votes required in order to elect a trustee.” Id.

       15
           We review an orphans’ court decree for an abuse of discretion or error of law. Plance,
175 A.3d at 260; see Pa.R.J.A. 2156(1) (defining matters that orphans’ court must resolve); see also
20 Pa.C.S. §§ 711(21) (defining jurisdiction of orphans’ court as including certain nonprofit
corporation matters), 712(3) (defining orphans’ court’s nonmandatory jurisdiction).
         During the pendency of this suit, the General Assembly amended portions of Chapter 57 of
Title 15. See 15 Pa.C.S. §§ 5701-5793. Church, however, did not request to file any post-submission
communications addressing any relevant amendments. See Pa.R.A.P. 2501.

                                                 7
(cleaned up). Thus, in Church’s view, 15 Pa.C.S. § 5757(a)16 applies, and under
Section 5757(a), “a majority of members attending the meeting and participating in
the vote” must vote in favor of a trustee. Id. at 25.
               In that regard, Church acknowledges that the orphans’ court primarily
relied on Sherrod’s testimony. Id. In Church’s view, however, the orphans’ court
misconstrued Sherrod’s testimony and disregarded the actual ballots that were
introduced into evidence. Id. at 25-26. Specifically, the court misinterpreted
Sherrod’s testimony that eight members constituted a quorum, as “somehow”
proving “there was an insufficient number of votes” for a majority. Id. at 25.
               Church then recaps Sherrod’s testimony that about 26 or 27 members
attended the 2018 election. Id. at 26. Per Church, the ballots reflect that “an
overwhelming majority of the attendees participated in the vote and voted in favor
of the” trustees at issue. Id. at 27. Church concedes that there was “less detail”
about the 2019 election but maintains that the record establishes a valid majority
vote. Id. at 27-28.17 Church concludes that this Court should reverse the orphans’
court and recognize the 2018 and 2019 election results as valid. Id. at 43.18
               Initially, it is well settled that courts do not resolve issues of church
administration based on “religious doctrine and practice.” Peters Creek United
Presbyterian Church v. Washington Presbytery of Pa., 90 A.3d 95, 104 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2014) (en banc). Rather, we apply a “neutral principles of law approach” to construe
church bylaws. Id. at 105. We apply this approach only when we can decide the
issue by using “purely legal principles without delving into ecclesiastical matters.”
       16
          Section 5757(a) of the Nonprofit Corporation Law of 1988, 15 Pa.C.S. §§ 5101-6162.
       17
          Precisely, Church argues the negative: nothing in the record suggests that a majority “did
not vote in favor” of the 2019 slate. Church’s Br. at 27-28. We add that in Church’s view, because
the orphans’ court’s opinion did not reference the 2018 ballots, which were of record, the orphans’
court must have overlooked the ballots. Id. at 27 n.2.
       18
          Reverend Reaves and Brown did not file an appellate brief.

                                                 8
Se. Pa. Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Am. v. Meena, 19 A.3d 1191,
1195 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (en banc). Our role here is to construe the bylaws of a
nonprofit corporation, which just happens to be a church.
             In construing church bylaws, we are guided by the rules of statutory
construction. M4 Holdings, LLC v. Lake Harmony Ests. Prop. Owners’ Ass’n, 237
A.3d 1208, 1218 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020); 1 Pa.C.S. §§ 1901-1991. For example, a court
may not insert a word that the drafter “failed to supply into a statute.” Interstate Gas
Supply, Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 298 A.3d 1181, 1188 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2023) (en banc)
(Interstate) (cleaned up), appeal granted (Pa., No. 292 MAL 2023, filed March 5,
2024); Felix Frankfurter, Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes, 47 Colum.
L. Rev. 527, 536 (1947) (“One more caution is relevant when one is admonished to
listen attentively to what a statute says. One must also listen attentively to what it
does not say.”). When a bylaw is silent, we may examine the relevant statute
governing nonprofit corporations. See Lutz v. Tanglwood Lakes Cmty. Ass’n, 866
A.2d 471, 474-75 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (applying the relevant law to affirm the
removal of a director of a nonprofit corporation because the bylaws were silent on
defining a particular basis for removal).
             We briefly recap Church’s Bylaws, which do not specify a quorum for
non-business meetings, such as meetings to elect a trustee or dismiss a pastor. See
generally Bylaws. The Bylaws only provide that the trustees must be elected by
“aye or nay” vote unless another option, e.g., ballot, was decided. Id. at Art. VII(A).
The Bylaws are otherwise silent on the minimum number of votes needed to elect a
trustee. See generally Bylaws. Because the Bylaws are silent, we discuss the
relevant nonprofit statutes. See Lutz, 866 A.2d at 474-75.
             Generally, Title 15 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes applies to

                                            9
all nonprofit corporations “regardless of the date” of incorporation. 15 Pa.C.S. §
5106(a).19 Typically, nonprofit corporations have certain powers, which include the
election, appointment, and removal of its officers. 15 Pa.C.S. § 5502(a)(16).20
Chapter 57 of Title 15 addresses officers21 and members of nonprofit corporations.
Id. § 5701-5793. “The officers shall be elected or appointed at such time, in such
manner and for such terms as may be fixed by or pursuant to the bylaws.” Id. §
5732(b).
               A valid meeting, such as an election, cannot occur “unless a quorum is
present.” Id. § 5756.22 Absent an applicable bylaw, a “quorum for the purposes of
consideration and action on a particular matter at a meeting shall consist of . . . the
presence of members entitled to cast at least a majority of the votes that all members
are entitled to cast on the matter . . . .” Id. § 5756(a)(1)(i).23 If a quorum of members
       19
           Section 5106(a) provides that subject to four exceptions, Title 15 “and its amendments
are intended to provide uniform rules for the governance and regulation of the affairs of nonprofit
corporations and of their officers, directors and members and of members of other bodies,
regardless of the date or manner of incorporation or qualification, or of the issuance of any
evidences of membership in or shares of a nonprofit corporation.” 15 Pa.C.S. § 5106(a).
        20
           Section 5502(a)(16) follows: “To elect or appoint and remove officers, employees and
agents of the corporation, define their duties, fix their reasonable compensation and the reasonable
compensation of directors . . . .” 15 Pa.C.S. § 5502(a)(16); see also id. § 5502(a)(19). Subject to
various exceptions, a nonprofit corporation’s bylaws “may contain . . . provisions for managing
the business and regulating the affairs of the corporation not inconsistent with law or the articles.”
Id. § 5504(a).
        21
            The definition of “officer” includes “trustee.” 15 Pa.C.S. § 5103 (defining the term
“officer” as “[i]f a corporation is in the hands of a custodian, receiver, trustee or like official, the
term includes that official or any person appointed by that official to act as an officer for any
purpose under this subpart”). We do not address whether the statutory term “trustee” is equivalent
to how Church uses the term.
        22
           “A meeting of members of a nonprofit corporation duly called shall not be organized for
the transaction of business unless a quorum is present.” 15 Pa.C.S. § 5756(a).
        23
           We quote Section 5756(a)(1) as follows:
       (a) General rule.—A meeting of members of a nonprofit corporation duly called
       shall not be organized for the transaction of business unless a quorum is present.
       Unless otherwise provided in a bylaw adopted by the members:

                                                  10
is present at a meeting, then Section 5757 defines a valid vote: in the absence of an
applicable bylaw, “whenever any corporate action is to be taken by vote of the
members of a nonprofit corporation, it shall be authorized upon receiving the
affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast by the members entitled to vote
thereon . . . .” Id. § 5757(a). In other words, if the bylaws are silent, then a valid
meeting, i.e., election, requires the presence of a majority of the organization’s
members. See id. § 5756; see also Stryjewski v. Panfil, 112 A. 764 (Pa. 1921).24
               Instantly, we agree with Church’s criticism of the orphans’ court’s
reasoning. For example, the orphans’ court quoted Sherrod’s testimony that 26 or

           (1) A quorum for the purposes of consideration and action on a particular matter
           at a meeting shall consist of:
               (i) the presence of members entitled to cast at least a majority of the votes
               that all members are entitled to cast on the matter; and
               (ii) if any members are entitled to vote as a class on the matter, the presence
               of members entitled to cast at least a majority of the votes entitled to be cast
               in the class vote.
15 Pa.C.S. § 5756(a)(1)(i)-(ii).
        24
           The parties did not cite Stryjewski, in which the church constitution provided that “[a]ll
of the members of the parish can discharge on a special meeting their parish priest . . . .” Stryjewski,
112 A. at 764. Church members were notified of a meeting to discharge the priest. Id. Of the 53
members present for the vote to dismiss the priest, 40 voted in favor and 2 voted against. Id. at
765. Per the Stryjewski Court, the “church constitution [was] silent on the question of a quorum.”
Id. The church board ratified the vote and the priest was notified of his dismissal, but he refused
to vacate the premises, which resulted in a lawsuit. Id.
        Our Supreme Court construed the church constitution as permitting the majority of
attendees that attended the meeting to vote out the priest. Id. (construing the phrase “all of the
members of the parish” as signifying “that such action must be had by the congregation at large
and not by the official board, or by any other body less than the membership, and that all shall
have opportunity to participate—not that all must attend the meeting, or every one vote in the
affirmative. To so hold would practically prevent all action, as it would rarely happen that every
member of the church could or would attend, or that all would be of one mind. Were that necessary,
no priest could be discharged so long as he had one friend in the church.” (citation omitted)). The
Stryjewski Court held that because the “meeting was largely attended, and more than one-half of
the entire membership remained when the [proposal to dismiss the priest was] acted upon; so there
is no question as to the presence of a quorum” to dismiss the priest. Id. The Court validated the
40 votes even though the 40 votes cast were “less than a majority of the entire membership.” Id.

                                                  11
27 people were present at the August 2018 election, which, per Sherrod, exceeded
the quorum of 8. Orphans’ Ct. Op. at 10-11. Nevertheless, the orphans’ court
inexplicably stated “there was no testimony presented at trial as to the exact number
of members present” at the August 2018 election. Id. at 11. But Sherrod testified that
26 or 27 members were present at the August 2018 election, which is corroborated
by the 26 signatures on the sign-in sheet for the meeting. See Ex. P-9.
              Relatedly, it is unclear why the orphans’ court focused only on
Sherrod’s testimony in finding that there was “an insufficient number of votes to
obtain a majority of votes,” which “would have been 15 . . . or 16 votes . . . .”
Orphans’ Ct. Op. at 11-12.25 The orphans’ court did not acknowledge the ballots
moved into evidence or explain why they should be discredited. The 24 ballots
reflect at least 18 unanimous votes in favor of the trustees, which exceed the 15 or 16
votes needed for a majority, per the orphans’ court. Compare id., with Ex. P-10
(ballots). Because the orphans’ court’s opinion (1) is internally contradictory, and
(2) contradicts unaddressed evidence of record, we vacate the decree below and
remand with instructions, as set forth in our order below.
                       B. Notice of Termination of Employment
              Although we vacate the orphans’ court decree and remand with
instructions, we are compelled to observe the following regarding Church’s second
issue. To briefly recap, the Bylaws provide that the reverend’s “term of office may
be ended upon ninety (90) days[’] notice on the part of the Pastor or the Church.”
Bylaws, at Art. II(C. Termination of Pastorate). The orphans’ court, however,
summarily held that the above term requires 90 days’ advance notice of the meeting

       25
           As discussed herein, because one absentee ballot was excluded, it appears the total
number of votes was actually 28 or 29, which would indicate a majority of 15. Compare N.T. Hr’g,
12/15/21, at 45, with Orphans’ Ct. Op. at 11.

                                              12
to dismiss Reverend Reaves.            Orphans’ Ct. Op. at 15 (stating “the testimony
presented was that approximately a [week’s] notice was given, or 7 days. Thus, the
[c]ourt could not confirm the termination of the pastor following the trial as notice
was not given at least ninety (90) days in advance”).
               On appeal, Church emphasizes the orphans’ court’s lack of any
supporting reasoning.        In support, Church asserts that such contractual notice
provisions “are routinely interpreted to require notice after a decision to terminate
an employee . . . .” Church’s Br. at 30 (citing Shaer v. Orthopaedic Surgeons of
Cent. Pa., Ltd., 938 A.2d 457 (Pa. Super. 2007)).26 Because the orphans’ court “sole
basis” for invalidating the vote dismissing Reverend Reaves was the 90 days’ notice
clause, Church requests that we reverse.
               In Shaer, the parties disputed a similar notice provision, specifically
whether the parties’ employment contract required the employer to provide the
employee “with ninety days’ notice upon its decision to terminate him, rather than
the thirteen days’ notice” by the employer. Shaer, 938 A.2d at 462. In resolving the
issue, the Shaer Court noted that “the ninety-day notice period was intended to
benefit both parties.” Id. at 465. “Regardless of who terminated the arrangement
and whether or not it was amicable,” the notice clause provided that the employee
would work during the 90-day notice period. Id. In exchange, the employer would
guarantee the employee’s employment, salary, and benefits for 90 days. Id. Thus,
the employer violated the contract by terminating the employee’s employment prior
to 90 days. Id.27
       26
          We may discuss Superior Court cases for their persuasive value. Marshall v. Se. Pa.
Transp. Auth., 300 A.3d 537, 541 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2023).
       27
          Shaer was cited in one treatise. Williston on Contracts § 54:49 (2023). In relevant part,
Section 54:49 notes that a notice clause “providing for two weeks’ written notice of termination”
ensures that the “employee is assured of the benefits of the contract for at least the prescribed
period after notice is given.” Id. (footnote omitted).

                                               13
               Instantly, the orphans’ court cited no caselaw in support of its novel
interpretation of a typical notice provision. See, e.g., id. In contrast, the orphans’
court interpretation apparently requires us to add the term “of the meeting” into the
Bylaws, which is ordinarily barred by the rules of construction. See Interstate, 298
A.3d at 1188. Although we vacate the decree and remand for further proceedings,
we would hold that the orphans’ court erred as a matter of law.28
                                    IV. CONCLUSION
               For these reasons, we vacate the orphans’ court’s January 5, 2022
decree. Because (1) some of the orphans’ court’s findings were unsupported by
competent and adequate evidence of record; and (2) the orphans’ court’s reasoning
is internally inconsistent and contradictory, we respectfully remand to have the
orphans’ court reissue its decree and opinion with findings of fact that cite to
evidence of record and consistent reasoning.29 The orphans’ court’s decree and
opinion must also address the trial exhibits, including the sign-in sheet for the 2018
election, see Ex. P-9, and resolve whether the members present for the 2018 election
constitute a quorum.

                                                LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

       28
          As noted herein, the trustees and deacons allegedly ratified the vote terminating the
Reverend’s employment. But the orphans’ court invalidated the pertinent election of the trustees.
       29
          The orphans’ court’s opinion quoted or paraphrased from the pleadings for some of its
apparent findings of fact. See Plance, 175 A.3d at 259 (stating that the orphans’ court’s findings
must be “supported by competent and adequate evidence” of record). Because the orphans’ court
decision generally did not cite to evidence of record, appellate review was hampered. Finally,
because of our disposition, we do not address Church’s third issue.

                                               14
          IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Re: New Central Baptist               :
Church, Non Profit Organization          :   No. 1079 C.D. 2022
                                         :
Appeal of: New Central Baptist           :
Church                                   :

                                     ORDER

             AND NOW, this 22nd day of March, 2024, we VACATE the January 5,
2022 decree entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Orphans’ Court Division. We REMAND for further proceedings. The orphans’
court is directed to reissue its decree and opinion with findings of fact citing to
evidence of record and consistent reasoning. The orphans’ court’s decree and
opinion, in addition to resolving all outstanding claims, must also address the trial
exhibits and resolve whether the members present for the 2018 election constitute a
quorum. Jurisdiction relinquished.

                                         LORI A. DUMAS, Judge