Court Opinion

ID: 9908280
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-08 15:06:18.638873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:04.567034
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: DECEMBER 1, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                          NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                  Commonwealth of Kentucky
                              Court of Appeals
                                 NO. 2022-CA-0573-MR

THANG NGO                                                                     APPELLANT

                 APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
v.              HONORABLE SUSAN SCHULTZ GIBSON, JUDGE
                         ACTION NO. 21-CI-005713

ANTHONY NGO AND THE ROMAN
CATHOLIC BISHOP OF LOUISVILLE
D/B/A ARCHDIOCESE OF
LOUISVILLE                                                                     APPELLEES

                                        OPINION
                                       AFFIRMING

                                       ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; ECKERLE AND KAREM, JUDGES.

THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE: Thang Ngo appeals from an order of the Jefferson

Circuit Court which dismissed his cause of action against Father Anthony Ngo. 1

We find no error and affirm.

1
  The Archdiocese of Louisville moved to intervene during the circuit court proceedings. The
circuit court granted the motion to intervene over Appellant’s objection.
                          FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                  Father Anthony Ngo (hereinafter referred to as Father Anthony) is the

priest assigned to St. John Vianney parish in Louisville, Kentucky. Thang Ngo is a

member of the parish and a former member of the Parish Council. Appellant, and

others, believed Father Anthony was misappropriating funds donated to the parish

by parishioners. Appellant and other members of the council informed the

Archdiocese of the alleged financial irregularities and requested Father Anthony

participate in an audit of the parish accounts.

                  Father Anthony eventually terminated Appellant and other members

from the council. This decision was ratified by the Archdiocese. The Archdiocese

then began an investigation into the allegations.2 Appellant, along with others,

then brought the underlying cause of action seeking an accounting from Father

Anthony.3

                  Father Anthony and the Archdiocese of Louisville later moved to

dismiss the case pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 12.02(f),

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Appellees argued that

Appellant lacked standing to bring the underlying claim because the funds at issue

2
  Comments made in the briefs indicate that this investigation was completed and there was no
merit to the financial irregularity allegations, but there is no evidence in the record to support this
claim.
3
    The other plaintiffs in this case have chosen not to participate in this appeal.

                                                   -2-
belonged to the church once they were donated. Appellees also argued the case

should be dismissed based on the doctrine of ecclesiastical abstention.

                    The concept of ecclesiastical abstention or church
             autonomy has long been recognized as a necessary
             corollary to the First Amendment’s religion clauses. To
             protect the rights embodied in the Free Exercise and
             Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment,
             ecclesiastical abstention provides a spirit of freedom for
             religious organizations, an independence from secular
             control or manipulation – in short, power to decide for
             themselves, free from state interference – matters of
             church government as well as those of faith and doctrine.
             Thus, when resolution of a case is dependent on the
             question of doctrine, discipline, ecclesiastical law, rule,
             or custom, or church government, secular courts must
             abstain from hearing the case. Put differently, where
             resolution of the disputes cannot be made without
             extensive inquiry by civil courts into religious law and
             polity, the First and Fourteenth Amendments mandate
             that civil courts shall not act.

St. Joseph Catholic Orphan Society v. Edwards, 449 S.W.3d 727, 738-39 (Ky.

2014) (internal quotation marks, footnotes, and citations omitted).

             The trial court ultimately dismissed the case based on the doctrine of

ecclesiastical abstention. This appeal followed.

                                    ANALYSIS

             Appellant argues that the trial court erred in granting the motion to

dismiss because the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not apply and the

controversy “can be resolved by the application of neutral principles of secular

law.” Id. at 739 (footnote and citation omitted). Appellant claims that Father

                                         -3-
Anthony owed a fiduciary duty to the parishioners to properly use and account for

the parish donations given to him and this does not involve church government or

religious doctrine.

                       It is well settled in this jurisdiction when
                considering a motion to dismiss under [CR 12.02], that
                the pleadings should be liberally construed in a light most
                favorable to the plaintiff and all allegations taken in the
                complaint to be true. Since a motion to dismiss for
                failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
                is a pure question of law, a reviewing court owes no
                deference to a trial court’s determination; instead, an
                appellate court reviews the issue de novo.

Littleton v. Plybon, 395 S.W.3d 505, 507 (Ky. App. 2012) (internal quotation

marks, footnote, and citations omitted). We believe that the trial court did not err

in this case.

                An accounting of church funds is directly related to church

governance. How parish funds were being spent was under the purview of Father

Anthony with oversight performed by the Archdiocese of Louisville. This is

supported by the fact that Appellant informed the Archdiocese of the alleged

misuse of funds and the Archdiocese initiated an investigation. In addition, the

Archdiocese intended to create a new Finance Council for the parish that will have

some input on how funds are used. If the trial court had allowed this case to move

forward to completion, any ruling it made would be an imposition on the will of

the Archdiocese and the church itself. The court would have been in a position to

                                            -4-
second guess the decisions of the Archdiocese as to the proper running of the

parish and administration of the parish funds. This type of situation is precisely

why the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine exists.

                                  CONCLUSION

             Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. The

court properly dismissed the case because the dispute was related to church

governance and internal church affairs.

             ALL CONCUR.

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:                       BRIEF FOR APPELLEE ANTHONY
                                           NGO:
Stuart Alexander
Louisville, Kentucky                       Michael B. Dailey
                                           Caroline K. Bruenderman
                                           Louisville, Kentucky

                                           BRIEF FOR APPELLEE THE
                                           ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF
                                           LOUISVILLE D/B/A
                                           ARCHDIOCESE OF LOUISVILLE:

                                           P. Kevin Ford
                                           T. Colin Ford
                                           Louisville, Kentucky

                                          -5-