Colonial Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery
| Decision Date | 31 July 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. WD 74374.,WD 74374. |
| Citation | 375 S.W.3d 190 |
| Parties | The COLONIAL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, Respondent, v. HEARTLAND PRESBYTERY, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Application for Transfer Denied Sept. 25, 2012.
J. Brett Milbourn, Eric M. Shimamoto, and Ryan G. Terril, Kansas City, MO, for Respondent.
Allan V. Hallquist, Kansas City, MO, for Appellant.
Before Division Two: VICTOR C. HOWARD, Presiding Judge, and MARK D. PFEIFFER and KAREN KING MITCHELL, Judges.
This is a church property case. The first issue is whether a national church's constitution, which purported to convey to the national church a local church's property in trust, is binding upon the local church, when the local church's own documents indicated allegiance to the national church but when the local church never indicated (in writing or otherwise) an intention to create a trust in favor of the national church. We hold that no trust was created with respect to the local church's property. The second issue is whether Missouri law governs the relationship between the local church and the national church with respect to property held in Kansas. Since both the local church and the national church's representative here are both Missouri entities, we hold that Missouri law governs their relationship. In relevant part, Kansas trust law does not differ from Missouri trust law, but Kansas may or may not apply a different rule governing local churches vis-à-vis their relationships to national churches. We need not decide the latter issue because no church or other religious organization incorporated in Kansas is a party to this lawsuit, and Missouri has the most significant relationship to the relationship between Colonial and the national church. Accordingly, we apply Missouri law and affirm.
Respondent The Colonial Presbyterian Church is a nonprofit Missouri corporation that owns property in both Missouri and Kansas. Colonial's predecessor was formed in the 1940s, and, until August 2010, Colonial was a congregation of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (“the national church”) or the national church's predecessors. Colonial first purchased land in Kansas in 1996. Appellant Heartland Presbytery is a presbytery 2 of the national church for the geographic region in which Colonial is located.
Colonial is the sole titleholder of all of the property that is disputed in this lawsuit. All of the relevant acts of conveyance list Colonial, and only Colonial, as the grantee. Colonial never signed any deed purporting to grant (or convey in trust) the disputed property to the national church or Heartland.
Colonial's articles of incorporation, enacted in 1953, provide as follows:
The purpose for which this corporation is formed is to incorporate a congregation of [the national church] for the conduct of all matters necessary and germa[ ]ne to the action of such church body under the laws and regulations of the national denomination.
Until the amendment that gives rise to this lawsuit, Colonial's bylaws provided as follows:
Being a union Congregation of the [national church], we recognize that these Bylaws and all their provisions are subject to the Constitutions of [the national church]. All Members of this Congregation shall be under the discipline of the Session according to the rules agreed upon in harmony with the Constitution of each denomination where they coincide, and in harmony with the mandatory provisions of the Constitution of the denomination wherein the others are permissive, and at the choice of the Session where they may be contradictory, subject in any event to the laws of the State of Missouri.
In 1983, the national church added the following provision to its constitution:
All property held by or for a particular church, a presbytery, a synod, the General Assembly, or the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) ... is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). 3
The national church's constitution was never signed by Colonial. Colonial is not indebted to Heartland or the national church in connection with any of the disputed property.
On August 5, 2010, Colonial's elders unanimously voted to recommend that Colonial withdraw from the national church. The elders scheduled a congressional vote to be held on August 22, 2010. On that date, Colonial's congregation voted to disassociate from the national church. The decision to disassociate carried with 97% of the vote. The 3% who voted to remain with the national church are not parties to this lawsuit.
Shortly before the vote occurred, Heartland had informed Colonial that all of Colonial's property was “held in trust for the use and benefit” of the national church. Colonial filed a petition for declaratory judgment, for quiet title, and for injunctive relief, seeking to establish that (1) it was the sole owner of the disputed property; and (2) Heartland had no right to the disputed property.
Heartland filed a counterclaim, asserting various causes of action but seeking, in essence, a declaration that it and the national church “are the beneficial owners of the real and personal property of Colonial.”
The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Colonial and against Heartland on all claims, finding that Colonial owned all of the disputed property and that Heartland could not establish that Colonial held any of the disputed property in trust. Heartland appeals.
We review the circuit court's ruling on summary judgment motions de novo. ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid–America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993). That means we apply the same standard that governed below. Id. A motion for summary judgment should be granted when (1) there is no genuine dispute of material fact; and (2) the moving party has demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Id.
Here, the parties do not dispute any of the material facts. Therefore, summary judgment was proper if and only if Colonial was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
In Points I and II of its appeal, Heartland argues that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment in that Colonial's articles of incorporation and bylaws, combined with the national church's constitution, created a trust in the national church's favor with respect to the disputed property. We disagree.
Under Missouri law, the national church's constitution was insufficient to convey the disputed property in express trust because the alleged settlor—Colonial—did not sign it.
Other than for a conveyance by which a trust may arise or result by the implication or construction of law,4 all declarations or creations of trust ... shall be manifested and proved by some writing signed by the party who is, or shall be, by law, enabled to declare such trusts ... else they shall be void.
§ 456.4–407.5 Heartland concedes that Colonial never signed the national church's constitution, and therefore the constitution did not create an express trust over the disputed property.
Colonial's articles of incorporation and bylaws did not convey the disputed property in express trust because they did not include an intention to convey anything, nor did they describe the disputed property at all. A document purporting to create a trust must contain an expression of the settlor's intention to convey the property in trust. § 456.4–402(2); Heartland Presbytery v. Gashland Presbyterian Church, 364 S.W.3d 575, 582–83 (Mo.App.W.D.2012). Furthermore, a document purporting to create a trust must contain a definite description of the property to be conveyed. Edgar v. Fitzpatrick, 377 S.W.2d 314, 318 (Mo. banc 1964). Here, the articles of incorporation and the bylaws express no intention to convey anything, nor do they even mention the property that Heartland claims was conveyed to it in trust.
Heartland asserts vaguely that the documents created an implied trust, but, generally, there are only two types of implied trusts: constructive trusts and resulting trusts, Parker v. Blakeley, 338 Mo. 1189, 1201–02, 93 S.W.2d 981 (Mo.1936); Gashland, 364 S.W.3d at 583 n. 9; and Heartland does not assert a claim to either. Since Heartland is not asserting a constructive trust or a resulting trust (and has not identified any other legally recognized theory of implied trust), its claim to an implied trust must fail.
Heartland also claims that the “neutral principles” method of determining church property disputes mandates a finding that a trust was created. The “neutral principles” method requires us to rely “exclusively on objective, well-established concepts of trust and property law familiar to lawyers and judges.” Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 603, 99 S.Ct. 3020, 61 L.Ed.2d 775 (1979). In the preceding three paragraphs, we applied the “well-established concepts of trust and property law familiar to lawyers and judges” and held that none of the documents relied upon by Heartland suffices to create a trust.
The “neutral principles” method simply means that we apply Missouri law, with the caveat that we do not “rely on religious precepts” in interpreting the relevant documents and that we will not “resolve a religious controversy.” Id. at 604, 99 S.Ct. 3020 (emphasis added). Here, we have not relied on any religious precept in interpreting the relevant documents: indeed, Heartland's complaint seems to be that, in interpreting the documents, the court below relied (as we do) exclusively on secular principles of trust law. Nor have we resolved (or even addressed) a religious dispute. Rather, we have simply resolved a property dispute, which, under these facts, is a matter that could scarcely be more secular.6Gashland, 364 S.W.3d at 586 (). The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brovont v. KS-I Med. Servs., P.A.
...the foreign jurisdiction before the court who would benefit from the foreign jurisdiction's law." Colonial Presbyterian Church v. Heartland Presbytery, 375 S.W.3d 190, 199 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012). It is arguable that a false conflict of laws exists here because the only resident of Kansas invo......
- McGuire v. Kenoma, LLC
-
Presbytery Area v. Eden Prairie Presbyterian Church, Inc., A16-0945
...to itself all of the local church's property, despite having no legal right to do so under neutral principles of law.375 S.W.3d 190, 197 n.10 (Miss. 2012). 3. EPPC also argued that the trust language contained in the Book of Order failed to create an enforceable trust because it violated Mi......
-
Bohnenstiehl v. Wright Med. Grp., Inc.
...conflict of laws and the case ought to be decided under the law that is common to both states." Colonial Presbyterian Church v. Heartland Presbytery, 375 S.W.3d 190, 199 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012). Plaintiffs argue that no conflict exists with respect to Linda Bohnenstiel's tort claims because the......
-
Section 18.27 Use of Extrinsic Evidence to Resolve Ambiguities
...for a written trust under § 456.4-407.2, now RSMo Supp. 2013, was addressed by Colonial Presbyterian Church v. Heartland Presbytery, 375 S.W.3d 190 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012). In Colonial Presbyterian, the court held that a church could not receive title to property that was conveyed into a trust......