Court Opinion

ID: 9781307
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 16:29:53.939529+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:23.958575
License: Public Domain

CARLEY, Presiding Justice,
dissenting.
The majority is mistaken in disregarding, as wrongly decided, Carrollton Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery of South Louisiana of the Presbyterian Church (USA), 77 S3d 975 (La. App. 2011), which is apparently the only precedent in the entire nation which is directly on point. Moreover, the majority has contrived an opinion which purports to make a thorough examination of the documents relevant to the “neutral principles of law” doctrine and to find the existence of a trust pursuant thereto even though it virtually ignores a necessary element of trusts.
As the majority acknowledges, Timberridge gave the Presbytery timely notice of the congregation’s “vote[ ] to take the ‘property exemption’ as provided in the Book of Order (G-8.0700).” The majority opines that Timberridge “plainly could not opt out of the property trust provision in Section G-8.0201, which mirrored the one in Section 6.3 of the PCUS Book of Church Order. [Cit.]” (Emphasis omitted.) Majority Opinion, p. 284. As the majority recognizes, § G-8.0701 provides that a local church could opt out of a property provision of the Book of Order (BOO) within eight years after the 1983 formation of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA) if the local church was not “subject to a similar provision of the Constitution of the church of which it was a part” prior to that formation. Although the property trust provision in § 6.3 of the prior 1982 PCUS Book of Church Order (BOCO) is indeed substantially similar to BOO § G-8.0201, the majority misses the full import of the similarity requirement.
*289G-8.0701 allows a church to be excused from a provision in that chapter of the Book of Order that is not substantially similar to a provision of its prior governing constitution. As the two purported express trust provisions in the Book of Order and [Timberridge’s] prior governing constitution (The Book of Church Order) are substantially similar, this could only mean that G-8.0701 provided [Timberridge] a means of opting out of G-8.0501, which requires the presbytery’s authorization to sell, mortgage, or encumber property, since that provision is in sharp contrast to § 6-8 of The Book of Church Order, which allowed a church to buy, sell, or mortgage “property of that particular church [in the conduct of its affairs as a church of the PCUS].” . . . “[T]he unfettered right to dispose of all of one’s property is mutually exclusive of any right by a third party to dictate the disposition of that same property.” (Emphasis supplied in part.)
Carrollton Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery of South Louisiana of the Presbyterian Church (USA), supra at 981. Although the Louisiana court did not cite authority in support of this neutral principle of law, it is consistent with the recognition of numerous courts and treatises that a trust fails if the trustee has absolute or uncontrolled discretion to dispose of the property, especially where, as here, the trustee is granted the power to use the property for its own benefit. George Gleason Bogert, George Taylor Bogert & Amy Morris Hess, The Law of Trusts and Trustees § 162; 55A Fla. Jur. 2d Trusts § 31. See also Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 125 (1959) (“If property is transferred to a person to be disposed of by him in any manner ... , no trust is created and the transferee takes the property for his own benefit.”); 10 Ga. Jur. Decedents’ Estates and Trusts § 17:10 (prior to Revised Georgia Trust Code of 2010, merger of legal and equitable interests resulted where single trustee was also the sole beneficiary).
“In other words, in allowing [Timberridge] to fall back on § 6-8, G-8.0701 negated any express trust as provided by G-8.0201.” Carrollton Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery of South Louisiana of the Presbyterian Church (USA), supra at__Thus, the majority completely misapplies BOO §§ G-8.0201 and G-8.0701, on which it so heavily relies. Furthermore, the majority’s observation that the Carrollton court relied on Louisiana trust statutes is immaterial, as it did so only as part of an alternative holding “even if [it was] not persuaded that [the local church] is exempt from the Book of Order’s express trust provision.” Carrollton Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery of South Louisiana of the Presbyterian Church (USA), supra at 981. Because of the ultimate negation of § G-8.0201 with respect to *290Timberridge, the majority is left with wholly insufficient evidence that Timberridge’s property is held in trust for the general church.
Moreover, even if the property trust provision has not been negated in accordance with the analysis of the Louisiana court, a crucial element for the existence of a trust is still not present in this case. That element is the intent of the settlor, which must be ascertained with reasonable certainty for an express trust to exist. OCGA § 53-12-20 (b) (1). Alternatively, it must be “implied from the circumstances” for an implied trust to exist. Former OCGA § 53-12-2 (3) (as it read prior to passage of the Revised Georgia Trust Code of 2010). Furthermore, even assuming that the majority has appropriately declined to apply Georgia’s generic express or implied trust statutes, the same requirement of the settlor’s intent nevertheless is found in the neutral principles approach, as articulated in Jones v. Wolf, 443 U. S. 595, 603-606 (III) (99 SC 3020, 61 LE2d 775) (1979):
[T]he neutral-principles analysis shares the peculiar genius of private-law systems in general — flexibility in ordering private rights and obligations to reflect the intentions of the parties.... [A] religious organization can ensure that a dispute over the ownership of church property will be resolved in accord with the desires of the members. . . . The neutral-principles method, at least as it has evolved in Georgia, requires a civil court to examine certain religious documents, such as a church constitution, for language of trust in favor of the general church. In undertaking such an examination, a civil court must take special care to scrutinize the document in purely secular terms, and not to rely on religious precepts in determining whether the document indicates that the parties have intended to create a trust. .. . Under the neutral-principles approach, the outcome of a church property dispute is not foreordained. At any time before the dispute erupts, the parties can ensure, if they so desire, that the faction loyal to the hierarchical church will retain the church property. . . . And the civil courts will be bound to give effect to the result indicated by the parties, provided it is embodied in some legally cognizable form. (Emphasis supplied.)
The burden involved in taking the steps suggested by the Supreme Court are minimal, as the majority states, but only if appropriate steps are taken before a dispute erupts and only if both parties have the requisite intent to create a trust. Jones v. Wolf, supra at 606 (3). Although the majority acknowledges this intent requirement in passing, it seriously errs by failing to apply that requirement in its *291examination of the relevant documents.
The intention of Timberridge Presbyterian Church (Timber-ridge), as the local church, cannot be discerned by consideration of either the 1982 amendment to the Book of Church Order or the 1983 Book of Order. To limit judicial consideration in this manner would effectively constitute an inappropriate deference to church doctrine and reliance on religious precepts, or even an attempted return to the unconstitutional “departure from doctrine” approach. From the Heart Church Ministries v. AME Zion Church, 803 A2d 548, 569-570 (III) (Md. 2002). Although the majority does consider relevant documents other than the Book of Church Order or the Book of Order, it does not articulate what it should be looking for. Where, as here, there is neither a dispositive statute nor any deed with clear trust language, a court must look in other documentation or circumstances for the local church’s intention to create a trust or to consent to trust provisions in national church documents. From the Heart Church Ministries v. AME Zion Church, supra at 570-571 (III).
The Articles of Incorporation for Timberridge Presbyterian Church, Inc. (TPC Inc.) are a remarkably slender reed on which to hang the weight of the majority opinion. The majority relies upon the Articles’ reference to the definition of “active member” in the Book of Order but fails to quote the whole definition, which reads as follows:
An active member of a particular church is a person who has made a profession of faith in Christ, has been baptized, has been received into membership of the church, has voluntarily submitted to the government of this church, and participates in the church’s work and worship.
BOO § G-5.0202. This provision is “located outside the property section of the Book of Order.” First Presbyterian Church of Schenectady v. United Presbyterian Church in the United States, 464 NE2d 454, 462 (III) (N.Y. 1984). Like the overall intent of the Book of Order, the purpose of that definition clearly is spiritual. The portion on which the majority relies is that an active member has “voluntarily submitted to the government of” the general church. This provision strongly implies in the context that the member has submitted to the authority of the general church only in spiritual matters. See Presbytery of Beaver-Butler of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States v. Middlesex Presbyterian Church, 489 A2d 1317, 1325 (II) (Pa. 1985). See also BOO § G-9.0102 (ascribing to the governing bodies of the general church “only ecclesiastical jurisdiction for the purpose of serving Jesus Christ and declaring and obeying his will in relation to truth and service, order and disci*292pline”). Moreover, the definition of “active member” relates only to individual members, and not to local churches or their relationship with the general church. Thus, judicial inquiry into and application of that definition is both irrelevant and constitutionally foreclosed. See First Presbyterian Church of Schenectady v. United Presbyterian Church in the United States, supra.
Furthermore, the prohibition in the Articles of Incorporation on bylaws which conflict with the Book of Order is likewise irrelevant to Timberridge’s intent with respect to the property trust provision in the Book of Order. Article IX of the Articles of Incorporation actually prohibits bylaws or amendments thereto which conflict with either the Articles or the Book of Order. Furthermore, Article X permits amendment of the Articles of Incorporation by majority vote of the members and does not prohibit any conflict thereof with the Book of Order. The majority cannot logically insist that Article IX is relevant but that Article X is not. Either both are irrelevant, or both are relevant in opposite ways. If the proscription on conflicting bylaws in Article IX indicates that Timberridge is subject to the Book of Order and its property trust provision, then the omission in Article X of any such proscription on conflicting amendments to the Articles necessarily provides the contrary indication that Timberridge is not subject to the Book of Order or its trust provision. Moreover, because Article IX indisputably does not make the Articles themselves subject to the Book of Order, the absence of any actual amendment to the Articles cannot show that TPC Inc. subjected itself to the Book of Order or its trust provision, especially in light of Article VI. That Article broadly grants TPC Inc. all of the powers conferred by the Georgia Nonprofit Corporation Code, including, but not limited to, the power “to receive, hold, encumber, manage, and transfer property, real or personal; to accept and execute deeds of title to such property; [and] to hold and defend title to such property. .. .” Nothing in the Articles of Incorporation states or implies any intent or consent that Timberridge’s property be held in trust for the general church.
In the face of the exceedingly weak or non-existent documentary evidence of Timberridge’s intent to hold all of its property in trust for the general church, other relevant documentation and circumstances overwhelmingly prove the absence of any such intent. Timberridge operated for more than 150 years, including over 100 years as a member of the Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS), without any property trust provision. As explained by the Court of Appeals, and apparently accepted by the majority, there is no evidence that any representative of Timberridge was aware of or assented to either the adoption of the 1982 property trust amendment to the Book of Church Order or the adoption of the property *293trust provision or opt-out clause in the 1983 Book of Order. Timberridge Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery of Greater Atlanta, 307 Ga. App. 191, 199 (1) (d) (705 SE2d 262) (2010). It cannot be said that Timberridge voluntarily affiliated with the general church in 1983. The Articles of Agreement providing for the 1983 reunion of the PCUS with the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (UPCUSA) mandates that “[e]ach and every congregation of the [PCUS] and of The [UPCUSA] shall be a congregation of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).” Article 1.4. Thus, instead of being required to “opt in,” each local church was automatically part of the new general church and was given eight years to petition for dismissal or to seek an exemption from the provisions of the property chapter of the Book of Order.
Timberridge did not wait eight years, but rather acted in four years. In fact, Timberridge acted just two weeks after the last individual owner conveyed her interest in the land to Timberridge, and the Presbytery was promptly notified as required. More important, Timberridge broadly took “the ‘property exemption’ as provided in the Book of Order (G-8.0700)” and did not limit that notice to a single provision of the property chapter. Most important of all, Timberridge’s notice, regardless of the precise application of that chapter’s language thereto, constituted Timberridge’s only expression of intent with respect to the recently enacted property trust provisions in national church documents. In that prompt notice, Timberridge unmistakably rejected any consent to hold its property in trust for the general church. It is irrelevant that 20 years elapsed thereafter during which Timberridge continued its relationship with the general church until a dispute arose and Timberridge brought suit asserting control of its property. Those circumstances are wholly consistent with the fact that Timberridge, which never expressed any intent to create a trust, was relying on its prompt notice of exemption from property trust provisions as its expression of intent not to create a trust. Compare Kemp v. Neal, 288 Ga. 324, 329 (2) (704 SE2d 175) (2010); Holiness Baptist Assn. v. Barber, 274 Ga. 357, 359 (552 SE2d 90) (2001); Crumbley v. Solomon, 243 Ga. 343, 345 (254 SE2d 330) (1979); Rector, Wardens and Vestrymen of Christ Church in Savannah v. Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Ga., 305 Ga. App. 87 (699 SE2d 45) (2010) (where local church recorded charter making it subject to national church’s canons, reaffirmed such accession after enactment of property trust canon, took no steps to disavow that canon for 30 years, and sought permission to sell or incur indebtedness on property), aff'd, 290 Ga. 95 (717 SE2d 237) (2011).
In sum, the majority erroneously rejects the most relevant precedent, which demonstrates the negation of the property trust *294provision in § G-8.0201 by § G-8.0701. Moreover, the majority disregards a basic principle of trust law which is subsumed in the “neutral principles” approach to church property disputes, and Timberridge proved that it never intended to place any of its property in trust for the general church or in any way to consent to trust provisions in national church documents. Accordingly, I can only conclude that the Court of Appeals correctly reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Presbytery, and I therefore respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice Hunstein joins in this dissent.