Court Opinion

ID: 9730895
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:27:13.376902+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:10.533374
License: Public Domain

GARRARD, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority’s determination that the operation of the cemetery is exempt from the requirements of IC 23-14 — 1-12.
I do not agree, however, with the majority’s general statement that a “second” trust can be created merely upon or by the consent of the trustee, nor do I believe the cases relied upon may be fairly read to stand for that proposition.
It is admitted that the Bishop holds legal title and that he does so as trustee. It appears under canon law that his consent is required to permit such a trust as that created here. It separately appears that there is a requirement that funds belonging to the church may only be invested in a certain manner. The materials before the court appear to establish that the Bishop agreed to “tolerate” the trust if certain conditions were met. It is manifest from the very initiation of this lawsuit that the Bishop was, in any event, attempting to revoke any permission theretofore granted or implied.
The resolution of these questions requires proper interpretation of the authority of the Bishop under the circumstances. I believe that such authority cannot be resolved without delving into ecclesiastical questions to an extent prohibited by the first and fourteenth amendments according to Jones v. Wolf (1979), 443 U.S. 595, 99 S.Ct. 3020, 61 L.Ed.2d 775.
The Bishop seeks to avoid the consequences of that conclusion by asserting that the rules of the association, itself, require it to be bound by his determinations. Neither the trust agreement with the bank nor the articles of incorporation of St. Paul’s Cemetery Endowment Association, Inc. contain any such requirement. The rules and regulations of the association provide in part that “In case of major controversy, the decision of the Most Reverend Bishop ... shall be final, .... ” but taken in context the provision appears to refer to questions concerning interment of individuals.
It therefore appears to me that resolution of the questions posed requires the interpretation and application of ecclesiastical law and we may not through the use of neutral principles of law decide the case.
I would therefore affirm the dismissal of the action.