Board of Church Extension v. Eads, 13640

• Decision Date: 21 December 1976
• Docket Number: No. 13640,13640
• Citation: 159 W.Va. 943,230 S.E.2d 911
• Parties: BOARD OF CHURCH EXTENSION and Home Missions of the Church of God, Inc. v. Percy EADS et al., as Trustees of the Gilboa Church of God and Rosetta King as Pastor, etc.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

Page 911

230 S.E.2d 911

159 W.Va. 943

BOARD OF CHURCH EXTENSION and Home Missions of the Church of God, Inc. v. Percy EADS et al., as Trustees of the Gilboa Church of God and Rosetta King as Pastor, etc.

No. 13640.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Dec. 21, 1976.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The power of the civil courts to interfere with the internal operations of churches is severely limited by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, and by W.Va. Const. art. III, § 15; therefore, the separation of church and state dictates two distinct approaches to church litigation depending upon whether a given church conforms to a hierarchical church structure where the local churches are connected with and subordinate to the laws, procedures and organs established by the constitution and bylaws of the general church, or alternatively whether the church is congregational in nature with authority vested in local congregations.

2. With regard to disputes within hierarchical churches, civil courts should respect, and where appropriate enforce, the final adjudications of the highest church tribunals, provided that such adjudications are not procured by fraud or collusion.

3. With regard to disputes within congregational churches, a civil court may intervene only if it may apply a completely neutral principle of law unsusceptible to a result-oriented rule selection process and the Court is not required to inquire into church doctrine or practice; where a court cannot apply a completely neutral principle to resolve the dispute, it must stay its hand, decline to intervene, and leave the matter in whatever Status quo the machinations of the church itself have brought it.

4. Where a clause in a deed to a church provides that the property shall go to another organization upon the happening of a definitely ascertainable event, a civil court must inquire only whether there has been literal compliance with the language of the deed and that the event in question has occurred.

5. A non-resident corporation which is directly responsible to the General Assembly of the Church of God and has general responsibility in the area of home missions work among American Indians and minority groups, makes loans to congregations who are building, takes care of conditional deeding of church property, and has responsibilities in the area of evangelism and building fund campaigns is a church within the contemplation of W.Va.Const., art. VI, § 47, and under W.Va.Code, 31--1--79 (1965) cannot qualify to do business or conduct business in a corporate capacity in this State.

6. Under W.Va.Code, 31--1--79 (1965) a nonresident church corporation could not maintain an action as a party plaintiff in a court of this State, and as the prohibition against a church corporation's maintaining an action is in furtherance of a legitimate public policy enunciated in W.Va.Const., art. VI § 47 and is not a burden upon interstate commerce such as to invalidate it by virtue of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States, such a provision is valid and will be enforced.

Timothy N. Barber, Charleston, for appellants.

Jackson, Kelly, Holt & O'Farrell, Thomas E. Potter, J. Randolph Query, Peggy O'Neal Hart, Charleston, for appellee.

NEELY, Justice:

This case involves a dispute between a national organ of the Church of God and a local congregation. The national organ claims title to local church property through the operation of reverter ¹ clauses in the deeds by which the local congregation first came into possession of the church property. The local congregation, defendants below, resisted the claim of the national organ, asserting that the conditions triggering the reverter have not yet been met, or alternatively, that by virtue of W.Va.Const., art. VI, § 47 and W.Va.Code, 31--1--79 (1965), both providing that no church can do business in a corporate capacity in the State of West Virginia, plaintiff corporation lacks the capacity to sue. The Circuit Court of Nicholas County found in favor of the plaintiff Board of Church Extension and against the defendants on both questions. We reverse on both questions.

The small town of Gilboa in Nicholas County first organized the Church of God in 1950. Bylaws were adopted and members of the congregation contributed labor and resources to construct a church building on property purchased from a family named Jamison. The conveyance from the Jamisons to the trustees of the newly formed church included the provision:

'It is understood and agreed that the Trustees of the Gilboa Church of God, and their successors in office, shall have the benefits and privileges of all rights hereunder as long as said church maintains fellowship and doctrinal unity with the General Ministerial Assembly of the Church of God, which meets annually at Anderson, Indiana.

'In the event this property falls into disuse, or if in the opinion of said General Ministerial Assembly, the local church at the above address, is no longer in fellowship and doctrinal unity with the Church of God, as represented by its General Assembly, this property shall go to, vest in, and become the property, in fee simple, of the Board of Church Extension and Home Missions of the Church of God, Anderson, Indiana.'

In 1964 another conveyance was made to the trustees of the church from Izora Bashaw which involved real estate tangent to the tract in the first conveyance and included the same reverter provision as the 1950 deed. A third conveyance to the defendant trustees of a parcel of real estate tangent to the two parcels involved in this proceeding did not include the reverter provision concerning the General Ministerial Assembly of the Church of God, and, admittedly that property was not at issue in this litigation.

In 1971, the trustees of the Gilboa Church of God conveyed the two properties which are the subject of this action to a straw party who re-conveyed the same properties to the trustees of the Gilboa Church of God without the conditions concerning the General Ministerial Assembly of the Church of God. There is no serious contention by the defendants that this conveyance has any effect upon the outcome of the case.

A succession of various trustees and at least nine pastors served the church from its beginnings until 1969 when Rosetta King became the pastor. This litigation arose because of the activities and beliefs of Rosetta King and the trustees of the church following the year 1969 and up to the time of the filing of the complaint in 1973. At the time of trial the congregation numbered between 75 and 80 parishioners.

The plaintiff contends that Rosetta King, as pastor of the Gilboa Church, at some unnamed time, withdrew herself from doctrinal unity with the national organization and, consequently, denied to a majority of the congregation of the church a place of worship. As a result of this alleged withdrawal from doctrinal unity, the plaintiff claims that the conditions in the two deeds already discussed were met and the title to the properties vested in the plaintiff. Initially the Executive Committee of the West Virginia Ministerial Assembly made the determination that such withdrawal from doctrinal unity had occurred. That determination was embodied in a West Virginia Ministerial Assembly resolution which was forwarded to the Executive Council of the General Ministerial Assembly at Anderson, Indiana. The Executive Council of the General Ministerial Assembly of the Church of God at Anderson, Indiana (which claims to be an agent of the General Ministerial Assembly of the Church of God at Anderson, Indiana) by its resolution, directed the sale of the properties covered by the two conveyances. This law suit was brought by the plaintiff corporation which is associated with the Anderson, Indiana Church of God movement in aid of the Executive Council's resolution for such sale.

The defendants asserted below that the plaintiff is an incorporated church which was prohibited by the statute in effect at the time the action was brought from being qualified to do business in West Virginia and that 'doing business' includes both the maintenance of this cause of action and the holding of any property. Defendants also asserted that since the Executive Council of the Church of God, Inc. made the final determination that the Gilboa Church of God was not in fellowship and doctrinal unity with the General Ministerial Assembly of the Church of God, Anderson, the conditions in the two deeds have not been met and the reverter clause is not operative. The defendants demonstrated that the General Ministerial Assembly itself made no findings and adopted no resolution concerning the withdrawal from unity, and further that the General Ministerial Assembly did not ratify, confirm, or adopt the findings or conclusions of the Executive Council of the Church of God, Inc. or similar findings of any other organ of the Church of God, Anderson, Indiana.

The evidence in this case shows that the internal sructure of the Church of God is congregational in nature, which gives autonomy in church affairs, including doctrine, to the local churches. The Executive Council of the Church of God, Inc. is a creation of the General Ministerial Assembly. The bylaws of the General Ministerial Assembly did not grant that corporation any power to act on behalf of the General Ministerial Assembly concerning the establishment or interpretation of its doctrine or the determination of defection from that doctrine. Although plaintiff argues that there are agency relationships between the West Virginia Ministerial Association, the General Ministerial Assembly, and the Executive Council, there was no evidence of a system of interconnected constitutions and bylaws which would lead the Court to conclude that there was a hierarchical church structure with a generally recognized internal system of conflict...