African Methodist Episcopal Church v. Shoulders

• Decision Date: 26 February 1971
• Docket Number: Docket No. 9976,No. 2,2
• Parties: The AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Earl SHOULDERS et al., Defendants-Appellants
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 536

187 N.W.2d 536

31 Mich.App. 290

The AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Earl SHOULDERS et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Docket No. 9976.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 2.

Feb. 26, 1971.

Released for Publication June 10, 1971.

Douglas S. Touma, Touma, Watson & Andresen, Port Huron, for defendants-appellants.

S. Keith Bankson, Bush, Luce, Henderson & Black, Port Huron, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Before McGREGOR, P.J., and T. M. BURNS and ANDREWS, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This case arises out of a dispute among members and officers of St. Paul African Methodist Episcopal Church of Port Huron. Defendants appeal the summary judgment granted on plaintiffs' motion. (The judgment is shown in the appendix Infra).

On April 16, 1970, plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging, Inter alia, that the church was an unincorporated association (a copy of the articles of association was attached to the complaint), that the local AME church was a local affiliate of the national AME church, and that the defendants physically prevented plaintiffs' access to the church building. Plaintiffs prayed for an injunction preventing defendants from obstructing access to church buildings and preventing religious worship, and for an accounting.

Defendants' motion for accelerated judgment of no cause of action under GCR 1963, 116, based on a lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, was not noticed for hearing nor decided. Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction was granted.

Following a pretrial conference the trial judge filed a 'statement of case' reciting:

'This is a case in which the plaintiffs allege that a dissident group, possibly a 'Defendants contend they have a substantial majority, if not all, of the congregation, and that the African Methodist Episcopal National and State Church has rules, doctrines, and Discipline for governing a local church, and in violating those rules and by their conduct have raised a serious question as to whether they are abiding by the rules of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, and defendants contend, that in order to practice their religion as they understand it, they can no longer affiliate with the African Methodist Episcopal Church, and that the practices conducted in the past by the American Methodist Episcopal Bishop and his other officers have violated the doctrines and principles of the African Methodist Episcopal Church.'

majority of the congregation, wish to use the St. Paul African Methodist Episcopal Church of Port Huron, Michigan, for other than African Methodist Episcopal Church uses as set forth in the Discipline, laws and usages of the parent church and the historical doctrines of the local church. In addition to the basic injunction, [31 Mich.App. 292] plaintiffs are requesting an accounting of the funds of the church.

The case was set for trial on July 16, 1970 when the trial court, without taking testimony, granted plaintiffs' motion for 'judgment on the pleadings' ¹ and ordered, Inter alia, that defendants be permanently restrained from obstructing the use of church property and from interfering with church activities and church members. In addition, defendants were ordered to make an accounting of assets belonging to the church.

The question before this Court is whether defendants stated a valid defense to the claims asserted against them. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the complaint allege that the defendants physically obstructed church members from entering the church building and from conducting religious services therein, that the defendants intend to deny church officers entrance to the church buildings, and that defendants 'have seized all of the finances' of the church. The answer denied these allegations as follows:

'The defendants deny any illegal purpose or plan and have not prevented anyone from attending the church services that have been held every Sunday in the church buildings; and

'The defendants deny that they initially refused or denied the minister or the representative and Presiding Bishop from entering the premises and the pulpit but admit that they have denied the recent appointee of the Bishop from conducting services at the church. The defendants further deny that they have been improperly using the church facilities.'

In addition, the defendants raised numerous affirmative defenses, alleging their grievances against the plaintiffs. 1 Honigman & Hawkins, Mich.Court Rules Annotated (2d ed), p 359, states:

'* * * in deciding whether the case is appropriate for summary judgment, the court must be strictly sure that it is not required to pass summarily upon any genuinely disputed issue of fact. In this sense, the rule is strictly construed.' See Podvin v. St. Joseph Hospital (1963), 369 Mich. 65, 119 N.W.2d 108 and Durant v. Stahlin (1965), 375 Mich. 628, 135 N.W.2d 392.

We conclude that the defendants stated a valid defense and they were entitled to be heard.

Remanded for trial.

APPENDIX

INJUNCTIVE JUDGMENT

At a session of said Court, continued and held at the County-City Building, in the Circuit CourtRoom in the City of Port Huron, County of St. Clair, State of Michigan, this 22nd day of July, 1970.

PRESENT: HON. Halford I. Streeter

Circuit Judge

The Complaint and Answer having been filed in the above matter; and

Following two hearings of record on different Motions filed by each party; and

The Court having examined the allegations contained in paragraphs eight, nine and ten of the Complaint and the admissions thereof contained in paragraphs eight, nine and ten of the defendants' Answer; and

A hearing having been held for the...