Court Opinion

ID: 9861531
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 00:09:16.069129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:28:37.690720
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE JIGANTI, dissenting: I must respectfully dissent from the opinion of the majority because I believe that application of neutral principles of law to the case at bar supports the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs. As recognized by the majority, this case presents a substantial underlying question of how a religious dispute over property should be resolved. More particularly, must the court defer to the ruling of the highest authority in a hierarchical church or may the court determine the dispute in another way? This question was addressed as follows by the United States Supreme Court in Jones v. Wolf (1979), 443 U.S. 595, 61 L. Ed. 2d 775, 99 S. Ct. 3020: “[T]he First Amendment prohibits civil courts from resolving church property disputes on the basis of religious doctrine and practice. [Citations.] As a corollary to this commandment, the Amendment requires that civil courts defer to the resolution of issues of religious doctrine or polity by the highest court of a hierarchical church organization. [Citations.] Subject to these limitations, however, the First Amendment does not dictate that a State must follow a particular method of resolving church property disputes. Indeed, ‘a State may adopt any one of various approaches for settling church property disputes so long as it involves no consideration of doctrinal matters, whether the ritual and liturgy of worship or the tenets of faith.’ Maryland & Va. Churches, 396 U.S., at 368 (Brennan, J., concurring) (emphasis in original).” (Jones v. Wolf (1979), 443 U.S. 595, 602, 61 L. Ed. 2d 775, 784, 99 S. Ct. 3020, 3025.) Thus, the Jones court recognized that in matters of church doctrine or polity, civil courts must utilize the “strict-deference” approach. However, in matters involving ownership and control of church property where no inquiry into religious doctrine is necessary, a State may decide the dispute based on “neutral principles of law.” The Court observed that the “neutral-principles” approach employs “objective, well-established concepts of trust and property law familiar to lawyers and judges.” (443 U.S. at 603, 61 L. Ed. 2d at 785, 99 S. Ct. at 3025.) The Jones case contained a strong dissent by four members of the Court who argued that the neutral-principles approach would nonetheless have the effect of involving the courts in religious disputes. The neutral-principles approach was adopted in Illinois in York v. First Presbyterian Church (1984), 130 Ill. App. 3d 611, 474 N.E.2d 716. The court observed that in applying the neutral-principles approach, courts "will examine such evidence as the language of a deed, the terms of a local corporate charter, State statutes applicable to church property and relevant provisions of the church constitution and laws. Following the decisions in Jones and York, the majority in the instant cause adopt the neutral-principles approach. I agree that applying neutral principles of law is the correct approach. I disagree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that application of neutral principles of law to the facts of the instant cause reveals a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to preclude an award of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. In deciding the cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court had before it the articles of incorporation of St. Sophia, the bylaws of St. Sophia, the constitution-bylaws of the regional diocese, the bylaws of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church in Bulgaria and certain affidavits.1 The articles of incorporation of St. Sophia provide that St. Sophia “administratively and canonically is [an] inseparable organic part of the Bulgarian Eparchy2 in America and remains under its jurisdiction.” The regional diocese created by the Bulgarian Orthodox Church is located in Akron, Ohio, and is under the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. The bylaws of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church provide that the regional diocese may dismiss local church boards when they do not perform their duties devotedly and conscientiously and may adopt a four-person commission having all the rights and duties of the church board. That is exactly what transpired in the case at bar. The regional diocese removed the defendants as directors of the church and appointed the plaintiffs as the commission assuming the rights and duties of the church board. The only issue in this case is whether St. Sophia submitted to the jurisdiction of the regional diocese and the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Although the majority finds a question of fact with regard to this issue, I believe that it is foreclosed by the statement in St. Sophia’s articles of incorporation that St. Sophia was “administratively and canonically” under the jurisdiction of the “Bulgarian Eparchy in America.” The rules for construing the articles of incorporation are the same as the rules for construing statutes and contracts and other private writings. (19 C.J.S. Corporations §948(a) (1940).) Construction of a contract is a question of law and the court must determine the construction from the document’s clear language. (Vigilante v. National Bank (1982), 106 Ill. App. 3d 820, 823, 436 N.E.2d 652.) It is the plain meaning of the words used in the contract that govern the interpretation. (Donaldson v. Gordon (1947), 397 Ill. 488, 74 N.E.2d 816.) The wording of the articles of incorporation of St. Sophia is clear: St. Sophia is “administratively and canonically” an inseparable part of the Bulgarian Eparchy in America and “remains under its jurisdiction.” The fact that the articles also give St. Sophia the responsibility of building its own church, securing its priests and developing a school and cemetery in no way contradicts the clear statement that the church was to be bound through the hierarchy to the regional diocese and ultimately the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. In support of its conclusion that there exists a question of fact on the issue of whether St. Sophia submitted to the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and its regional diocese, the majority relies on the bylaws of St. Sophia. These bylaws provide that the administration of St. Sophia is to be within the executive committee and the board of directors of the local church and that the committee is to control the real estate and other property of the parish, to determine the salary of the priests and to otherwise deal in property. The bylaws further state that no member of an executive committee of any other organization shall serve as a member of the executive committee of St. Sophia. The majority also relies upon the bylaws of the regional diocese, which provide that each local church has “absolute control and titles [to] real estate and personal properties” and that the board of trustees of each local church administrates each parish. In my view, neither the bylaws of St. Sophia nor the bylaws of the regional diocese can properly be interpreted as coming into conflict with St. Sophia’s articles of incorporation on the issue of whether St. Sophia submitted to the jurisdiction of the regional diocese and the Bulgarian Orthodox Church in matters of administration. The fact that the regional diocese, as an arm of the church hierarchy, can replace the executive committee and board of directors of St. Sophia does not mean that control of the church property no longer rests in St. Sophia. St. Sophia will still operate as St. Sophia, but under a new leadership. Furthermore, if the bylaws did in some way conflict with the clear wording of the articles of incorporation, the articles would control. Illinois law provides that the bylaws of a corporation may contain any provisions for the regulation and management of the affairs of the corporation not inconsistent with law or the articles of incorporation. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 32, par. 157.25; Westlake Hospital Association v. Blix (1958), 13 Ill. 2d 183, 148 N.E.2d 471.) The only inconsistency remaining, then, concerns the affidavits. Again, in my view the affidavits cannot prevail over the clear statements contained in the articles of incorporation. For the foregoing reasons, I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.   Although the majority comments that the trial court employed its strict-deference approach, I am unable to determine how the majority reaches that conclusion. The only rationale I can discern is that because the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs appointed by the regional diocese and against the local church, it must have used the strict-deference approach. In my judgment, it could be equally well concluded that since the court had before it all the necessary documents, that the judgment was reached using neutral principles of law.   Eparchy is defined in Webster’s dictionary as meaning diocese. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 761 (1981).