Brady v. Reiner

• Decision Date: 31 July 1973
• Docket Number: No. 13146,13146
• Citation: 157 W.Va. 10,198 S.E.2d 812
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: G. Bland BRADY et al., etc., and W. Va. Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, et al., etc. v. Earl REINER et al., etc., and Avery Church of Morgantown.

Page 812

198 S.E.2d 812

157 W.Va. 10

G. Bland BRADY et al., etc., and W. Va. Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, et al., etc. v. Earl REINER et al., etc., and Avery Church of Morgantown.

No. 13146.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted Sept. 19, 1972.

Decided July 31, 1973.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The West Virginia Constitution, Article III, Section 15 and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution absolutely forbid civil governments, either through judicial decision or legislative enactment, from interfering in church doctrine or practice--a matter of religious freedom, or from 'establishing' a church or form of church government to the detriment of another religious belief or organization.

2. A civil court cannot base a decision as to the ownership of church property on an interpretation of church doctrine or practice.

3. Insofar as the cases of Canterbury v. Canterbury, 143 W.Va. 165, 100 S.E.2d 565 (1957) and Woodrum v. Burton, 88 W.Va. 322, 107 S.E. 102 (1921) purport to resolve church property disputes based upon substantiality of departure from doctrinal beliefs of church organizations and consequently call for inquiry by the court into the fundamental beliefs of the church organization they are disapproved. Specifically, this Court overrules Syllabus Points 2 and 4 of the Canterbury case, and Syllabus Point 2 of Woodrum v. Burton, Supra, and the supporting language contained in those cases.

4. A civil court may resolve church property disputes in a constitutionally permissible manner by application of neutral principles of law which neither interfere with the free exercise of religion nor establish one church or form of church government to the detriment of another.

5. Church polity refers to the general governmental structure of a religious society, the organs of authority and the allocation and locus of its judicatory powers as defined by its own organic law. Two broad types of church polity are recognized by the courts: (a) in the hierarchical type of church polity, the local churches are an organic part of, connected with and subordinate to the laws, procedures and organs established by the constitution and bylaws of the general church; and (b) in the congregational type of church polity, the local church is independent, autonomous, and, therefore, the highest authority in all matters of doctrine and usage and is characterized by its freedom to act on any matter, in accordance with the will of a majority of its membership, conditioned only upon the rules and procedures prescribed by the internal law of its own constitution and bylaws.

6. The form of church polity or government, the ecclesiastical law regarding property, the discipline, customs and usages of a church, written or not, are vital integral parts of doctrine, the interpretation of which is forbidden to the civil courts by the West Virginia and United States Constitutions.

7. A court may identify the polity and locus of authority of a church body only where such are known and settled by ecclesiastical law or discipline of the church.

8. The polity of The United Methodist Church, and predecessor Methodist church organizations, is connectional in structure and identifiable as a hierarchical form of church government as defined in its ecclesiastical laws prescribed in The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church (1968).

9. In absence of an express trust conditioning the use of property contrary to the rule of the church, a rule of the church resolving a church property dispute is conclusive upon the civil courts so long as such adjudicated disposition of the property was not obtained by fraud, collusion or arbitrary action.

10. According to the ecclesiastical law of The United Methodist Church, titles to property held by trustees of a local church are held in trust for the general church. Consequently, the action of the general church through the trustees appointed by its West Virginia Annual Conference to recover the local church property, not being the product of fraud, collusion or arbitrary conduct, is absolutely conclusive upon the civil courts and will be respected and enforced by the courts of this State.

11. A statute which provides that trustees holding legal title to church property are subject to the 'local control' of the church congregation, does not abrogate the right of beneficial ownership in church property in that such ownership is determined by the ecclesiastical laws and discipline of the church ruling body. Code 1931, 35--1--1 and 3, as amended.

12. A statute providing for the appointment and removal of trustees who hold legal title to church property, according to the rule of the church consistent with its polity, which also provides such trustees are accountable to the appointing body, properly interpreted means such trustees hold legal title to church property for the use and benefit of its equitable owner,--the general church, when the trustees are connected in membership to a hierarchical church organization, or the independent church, when the trustees are connected in membership to a congregational church organization. Code 1931, 35--1--5 and 7, as amended.

13. West Virginia Code, Chapter 35, Article 1, Section 1 et seq. (1931), as amended, governing property arrangements of religious organizations, and specifically, Section 12 thereof, is a constitutionally permissible legislative act providing a method of resolving church property disputes which is neutral in application, in that it neither interferes with the rule of the church or the free exercise of religion, nor does it favor one form of church polity or 'establish' one church to the detriment of another, where such enactment also contains provisions recognizing that court resolution of church property disputes may be conditioned upon terms of the conveying instrument.

14. In accordance with neutral principles of law, civil courts will recognize and enforce an express trust in a conveying instrument which conditions the use or control of church property in a specified manner contrary to the rule of the church so long as the enforcement of such trust does not require the court to determine the controversy on the basis of religious doctrine and practice.

15. A deed conveying property to the trustees of a local church expressly conditioned upon its being held for the use and benefit of the general church to which the local church is connected, will be construed to have conveyed that property to the general church by the language of the instrument and not by the rule of the church, in accordance with neutral principles of property law.

16. When one joins a church and contributes of his time and property to the improvement of the church, he does so with the recognition, as a condition of membership, that he submits himself to the doctrine and rule of the church.

17. Civil courts freely recognize and affirm the right of any individual or group to leave, abandon or separate from membership in a church. Upon separation, however, such person may not take with him the property of the church departed from, since such property, in absence of agreement with the church, remains under the jurisdiction and control of the church.

Wilson, Frame & Rowe, Clark B. Frame, Morgantown, for appellants.

Jackson, Kelly, Holt & O'Farrell, Thomas E. Potter, Charles Q. Gage, Scott L. Messmore, Charleston, for appellees.

HADEN, Justice:

The subject of this appeal is an award of church property by the trial court to The United Methodist Church, represented by the appellees. The property in question is located in Union District, Monongalia County, and is generically described by the appellees as the Avery United Methodist Church of The United Methodist Church. The appellants, who are trustees of an independent church, called it simply the Avery Chapel. For purposes of neutrality it will be described in this review as the 'Avery Church' and the designation is meant to include real estate, church buildings, a parsonage, all personal property found therein, and located there and elsewhere, all intangible personal property such as bank accounts belonging to and representing additional value to the Avery Church.

The property dispute arose when the total congregation of the Avery United Methodist Church, a local church of The United Methodist Church, seceded or separated from The United Methodist Church and formed an independent church now known as the Avery Chapel. After the separation occurred The United Methodist Church, through its West Virginia Annual Conference, brought this litigation to prevent the Avery Church congregation from taking with them the property of the Avery Church to the independent church organization.

The plaintiffs and appellees in this case are the trustees of the Annual Conference of West Virginia of The United Methodist Church, which is a representative body having jurisdiction over all church activities of that denomination within the State of West Virginia with the exception of Berkeley, Jefferson and Morgan Counties. Their qualification, election and appointment was made pursuant to the ecclesiastical law of the church found in The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church (1968), 1519, et seq., hereinafter cited as Book of Discipline, U.M.C. (1968). The trustees in question are acting pursuant to the ecclesiastical law of the church specifically set forth in subparagraph 3 of 1519 which provides action that may be taken to protect church property when a dispute arises, as follows:

'The board may intervene and take all necessary steps to safeguard and protect the interests and rights of the Annual Conference anywhere and in all matters relating to property and rights to property whether arising by gift, devise or otherwise, or where held in trust or established for the benefit of the Annual Conference or its membership.'

Additional plaintiffs are D. Frederick Wertz,...