First Methodist Church of Union Springs v. Scott

• Decision Date: 04 September 1969
• Docket Number: 4 Div. 269
• Citation: 226 So.2d 632,284 Ala. 571
• Parties: The FIRST METHODIST CHURCH OF UNION SPRINGS, Alabama, et al. v. Haywood Lynn SCOTT et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 632

226 So.2d 632

284 Ala. 571

The FIRST METHODIST CHURCH OF UNION SPRINGS, Alabama, et al. v. Haywood Lynn SCOTT et al.

4 Div. 269.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Sept. 4, 1969.

Frank Dominick, Birmingham, Alto V. Lee III, Dothan, and Albert W. Copeland, Montgomery, for appellants.

Albert F. Simpson, Jr., Eufaula, for appellees.

COLEMAN, Justice.

Complainants appeal from a decree denying relief to complainants and declaring that respondents have title to the real estate involved in the suit, impressed, however, with a trust for religious uses.

The record contains more than five hundred pages. Exhibits include four books, to wit: Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Church, 1960; idem, 1962; Journal of the Alabama-West Florida Conference, 1963; and 1960 Journal of the 1960 General Conference of the Methodist Church. These exhibits embody more than three thousand printed pages. There are also other papers and manuscripts which include several hundreds of pages. The briefs cover approximately one hundred forty typewritten pages.

The question for decision, however, is whether a certain act of the Legislature violates the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. To shorten this opinion as far as practicable, we undertake to state the case by copying and paraphrasing extensively from appellants' statement of the case. Appellees say in their brief: 'Appellants' statement of the case is substantially correct.'

Statement of the Case.

The case arises from an unfortunate schism in the membership of the First Methodist Church of Union Springs, hereinafter referred to as First Methodist, which is a local congregation of the Methodist Church. In November, 1963, a majority of the members of the local congregation ('ninety-four and six tenths per cent of the residential, adult membership') withdrew from membership in The Methodist Church and affiliated themselves with the Southern Methodist Church, a denomination separate and distinct from the Methodist Church. The majority group incorporated themselves as Union Springs Southern Methodist Church of Union Springs, Alabama; sometimes herein referred to as Southern Methodist.

Complainants are certain officials of The Methodist Church and also the minority group of the local congregation who remain loyal to The Methodist Church.

Respondents are the officials and proper representatives of the majority group and of Southern Methodist.

There is no dispute as to complainants and respondents constituting the proper parties. Complainants recognize that respondents have the unquestioned right to terminate their membership in The Methodist Church with or without any reason or cause. Complainants say in brief:

'. . .. Rather, the questions presented by this appeal relate to whether persons who have so terminated their membership in the religious society are entitled to retain possession of the real and personal property of the local church.'

After withdrawing from The Methodist Church, respondents took possession of the real estate used by the local church as a place of worship, the parsonage, and also personal property used in connection with the real estate.

Complainants commenced this suit to recover possession of the real estate. The bill of complaint appears to have been regarded as one to enforce the rights claimed by complainants to enforce a trust. No question is raised as to the right of complainants to proceed in equity.

'This protective jurisdiction of equity may be invoked by members, or by representative officers of the church, or both, who would protect the trust property from diversion to another purpose. (Citations Omitted)' Morgan et al. v. Gabard et al., 176 Ala. 568, 575, 58 So. 902, 904.

Complainants aver that the title is in the trustees of First Methodist, who are parties complainant. It appears that, in 1860, the land, on which the church building is located, was conveyed by deed to certain persons therein named,

'. . . and their successors in office forever in fee simple in trust that they may erect and build or cause to be erected and built thereon a house or place of worship for the use of the members of the Methodist E. South (sic) according to the rules and discipline which from time to time shall be agreed upon and adopted by the ministers and preachers of the said church at the general conference and in further trust and confidence that they shall at all times forever hereafter permit ministers and preachers belonging to the said church as shall from time to time be duly authorized by the general conference of the ministers and preachers of said M.E. Church South or by the annual conference authorized by said general conference to preach and explain God's Holy Word therein . . ..'

The land on which the parsonage is located was conveyed in 1948 to: 'The Board of Trustees of the Union Springs Methodist Church.' The habendum clause is to said Board, '. . . their heirs and assigns in fee simple FOREVER.' We find no declaration of an express trust. The parties make no distinction between the two deeds, however, and we make none. Appellants say in brief, '. . . the answer to the bill of complaint admits that it (the parsonage lot) is subject to the trust provisions set out in the Discipline of the Methodist Church . . ..' (Par. Supplied)

The First Methodist Church of Union Springs continues to exist and is subject to the Annual Conference of the Alabama-West Florida Conference of The Methodist Church and is now being served by a pastor of The Methodist Church.

Respondents allege in cross bills and contend that they are entitled to possession and ownership of the land here involved by virtue of Act No. 79, approved August 14, 1959, page 257; which appears in Pocket Parts, 1958 Recompiled Code, as Title 58, §§ 104--113.

Act No. 79 is entitled:

'AN ACT

'To protect and preserve basic trust and fiduciary purposes and interests inherent in the intent and understanding when property in Alabama shall have been subjected or devoted to local church, charitable or educational uses; to prevent impairment of such intent and to preserve the charitable or trust use intended, from subjection to uses, functions or doctrines subversive of such intent or inconsistent with social order, harmony and good will in the administration thereof as a result of or in the event of action by any higher or affiliate church or other authority affecting the administration or use of the property; and to provide for repayment of unsecured loans or grants made by the parent church (or its affiliated organizations) to the local church as those terms are herein defined; and to provide procedure for protection and preservation of such intent, and the religious, charitable or educational use involved, and for declaratory action to that end.'

'Majority group' is defined as 'sixty-five per centum or more of membership resident in Alabama, enrolled in any local protestant church,' not including minors.

'Local church' is defined as any church of the protestant faith which holds title to or trust interest in property and is affiliated with or recognizes the doctrinal, religious, administrative, jurisdictional, ecclesiastical, or other superior authority of a larger denominational or ecclesiastical body.

'Parent church' means the larger body or authority having jurisdiction over such local church.

'Trust clause' means any clause inserted in a deed or instrument, or which is required by law of the parent church to be so inserted, providing that property acquired by the local church, or in the name of trustees for use of the local church, shall be held in trust for the parent church substantially as follows:

'In trust, that said premises shall be used, kept and maintained as a place of divine worship of the parent church, or as a place of residence for the use and occupancy of ministers of the parent church, subject to the discipline, usage and ministerial appointments of said church as from time to time authorized and declared by the law-making bodies of the parent church.'

Paragraph (g) of Section 1 recites:

'(g) Change of social policies means any substantial and material change in or departure from the discipline, social creed, jurisdictional system, authoritative pronouncements or other church law relating to the social standards, practices or policies of the parent church or its affiliated institutions, as the same existed at the time of affiliation or merger of the local church with the parent church, and which change is contrary to the way of life of the majority group.'

Section 2 of the act recognizes and declares that the majority group of any local church, owning title to or interest in church property, has a right and equity to prevent church property held subject to the trust clause from being converted to or used for an unintended or different use due to a change of social policies of the parent church. Section 2 further provides that the majority group has the right and equity to be relieved of a material departure from the understanding of such local church, or majority group, with respect to use of church property, or the conduct of traditional social practices due to a change of social policies of the parent church. ¹

Section 3 provides that the majority group may withdraw from the parent church and thereupon be permitted to devote the church property to the uses originally intended in the trust clause. It is provided that the act is not intended to control any doctrine or social practice of the parent church and one of the purposes of the act is to afford an effective remedy for protection of the trust property from impairment or loss when the intended trust use is threatened by action of the parent church inconsistent with the basic intent expressed in the dedication thereof.

The act further provides for implementation thereof by suit in equity.

Complainants contend that Act No. 7. violates the First Amendment to the Constitution...