Court Opinion

ID: 9785144
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:06:02.691494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:07.705076
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge LEAVITT.
I respectfully dissent. The majority holds that the Synod’s decision to close Redeemer and take control of its property was an ecclesiastical matter over which the courts lack jurisdiction. However, the validity of the Synod’s action turns on a question of corporate governance that can be decided under neutral principles of Pennsylvania corporation law. Specifically, Redeemer contends that the Synod’s action was ultra vires because it was not authorized by the Synod’s Articles of Incorporation. I would remand that question to the trial court for disposition.
The Synod has adopted a bylaw that authorizes the Synod Council to take control of the property of a congregation under certain circumstances. Section 13.24 provides:
If any congregation of this synod is disbanded, or if the members of a congregation agree that it is no longer possible for it to function as such, or if it is the opinion of the Synod Council that the membership of a congregation has become so scattered or so diminished in numbers as to make it impractical for such congregation to fulfill the purposes for which it was organized or that it is necessary for this synod to protect the congregation’s property from waste and deterioration, the Synod Council, itself or through trustees appointed by it, may take charge and control of the property of the congregation to hold, manage, and convey the same on behalf of this synod. The congregation shall have the right to appeal the decision to the Synod Assembly.
Constitution, Bylaws, and Continuing Resolutions of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, § 13.24; Reproduced Record at 129 (R.R. -) (emphasis added). The Synod’s Articles of Incorporation state:
In the performance of its functions, this corporation shall not act as the agent of, or otherwise obligate the income or assets of the ELCA, any congregation of the ELCA or any other synod of the ELCA without the express authorization of such entity.
R.R. 001 (emphasis added). Redeemer argues that Section 13.24 exceeds the Synod’s corporate authority, which does not allow the Synod to “take charge and control of the property” of a congregation without the approval of the congregation.
Under Pennsylvania law, the Articles of Incorporation trump any inconsistent provision in the corporate bylaws. Specifically, both the Pennsylvania Business Corporation Law of 1988, 15 Pa.C.S. §§ 1101-4162, 1504(a), and the Pennsylvania Nonprofit Corporation Law of 1988, 15 Pa.C.S. §§ 5101-6162, 5504(a), provide that the bylaws of a corporation must be “not inconsistent with law or the articles ” (emphasis added). In Dugan v. Firemen’s Pension Fund of Philadelphia, 372 Pa. 429, 434, 94 A.2d 353, 355 (1953), our Supreme Court held that the bylaws of a corporation must be consistent with the corporation’s charter. In March v. Fairmount Creamery Association, 32 Pa.Super. 517, 520 (Pa.Super.1907), our Superior Court held that a *1200bylaw authorizing a forfeiture of vested property rights was invalid unless adopted pursuant to a power conferred by the corporate charter or statute.
' Redeemer argues that the Synod’s bylaw, i.e., Section 13.24, is invalid and unenforceable. The trial court dismissed Redeemer’s complaint for the stated reason that the case involved an inquiry into ecclesiastical matters of church discipline and internal governance, noting that the “thrust of the matter relates to Synod’s internal decision to shut down Redeemer’s congregation.” Trial Court Opinion at 6. The majority affirms, reasoning that because Redeemer agreed to be bound by the Synod’s bylaws, including Section 13.24, it cannot now complain. I disagree. In Weiss v. Musical Mutual Protective Union, 189 Pa. 446, 42 A. 118 (1899), our Supreme Court held that members of an incorporated union could not be bound by an illegal bylaw because they did not object at the time of its passage. A corporation’s bylaw that is inconsistent with the corporation’s articles of incorporation is ultra vires and void, even where it was unanimously assented to by its members. Dugan, 372 Pa. at 437, 94 A.2d at 356 (Musmanno, J., dissenting on other grounds) (quoting 18 Corpus Juris Secundum, Corporations, § 189).1
Whether Section 13.24 of the Synod’s bylaws is ultra vires and beyond the Synod’s corporate charter is not an ecclesiastical matter dealing with doctrinal questions or church governance. It presents purely a question of corporate law that can be resolved under Commonwealth laws. Presbytery of Beaver-Butler v. Middlesex Presbyterian Church, 507 Pa. 255, 266, 489 A.2d 1317, 1323 (1985) (holding that in cases where the resolution of a property dispute between members of a religious association involves no inquiry into ecclesiastical questions, courts of the Commonwealth are to apply the same principles of law as would apply to nonreligious associations). That is precisely the case here.2
For these reasons, I would reverse the trial court’s decision to dismiss the complaint and remand the matter to the trial court to consider whether the Synod’s bylaw is illegal as contrary to its Articles of Incorporation.
Judge McCULLOUGH joins in this dissenting opinion.

. As an aside, I disagree with the majority that Redeemer made itself part of a hierarchical organization, i.e., the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. The governing documents describe the relationship as interdependent. Nor is this a case like In Re: Church of St. James The Less, where Episcopal churches affiliated with the National Episcopal Church hold property in trust for the national church and the diocese.