Dews v. Peterson

• Decision Date: 06 March 1969
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 728
• Citation: Dews v. Peterson, 219 So.2d 903, 283 Ala. 650 (Ala. 1969)
• Parties: Lila DEWS v. Henry J. PETERSON et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 903

219 So.2d 903

283 Ala. 650

Lila DEWS v. Henry J. PETERSON et al.

7 Div. 728.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 6, 1969.

Love & Love, Talladega, for appellant.

Dempsey & Hardegree, Ashland, for appellees.

COLEMAN, Justice.

The respondent appeals from a final decree for complainants on a bill in equity in which complainants pray for a decree declaring: that a certain parcel of land is owned by the Hollins Springs Missionary Baptist Church, or is held by trustees for said church; that respondent has no right, title, interest, or claim in or to said land; and that respondent be enjoined from interfering with the conduct of the services and affairs of said church and from trespassing upon and interfering with the use and occupancy of said land.

The suit is brought by four individual persons who are described in the bill as deacons, members, and trustees of said church. Complainants do not aver that the church is incorporated. They state in brief that the church 'is an unincorporated church or association.'

Complainants aver that the church owns a building located on the land in controversy and has been in possession for more than fifty years; that respondent is a member of the church; that she has undertaken to prevent the church and its membership from making repairs and improvements on the building; that she recently destroyed some new steps which the church and its membership had erected that she has disrupted and interfered with divine worship of the church; all of which is working irreparable damage to the personal and property interests of complainants and to the interests of the church.

Respondent filed answer and cross bill in which she denies the capacity in which complainants sue. She avers that she constructed and built the church herself, that it was built on her property, that services have been conducted in the building with her permission and consent, that she has never conveyed the building or land to the church, and that the building is her building, paid for by her and she has a right to possession of her property.

It is clear from the pleading and evidence, as well as the decree, that the issue in this suit is the title to the parcel of land described in the bill and the church building thereon. There is no deed to the church or to anyone else for the use of the church. Apparently, the record title is in respondent. Complainants' claim is that the church has acquired title or ownership by dedication or prescription. The issue is whether the church owns the property.

The church is not made a party to this suit. Complainants state in brief that 'the action was brought by the complainants as members of the Hollins Springs Missionary Baptist Church * * *.'

'The church, whether an incorporated body, or a voluntary association of persons, is a necessary party to any proceedings affecting its properties. * * *' Bailey v. Washington, 236 Ala. 674, 676, 185 So. 172, 173; Skyline Missionary Baptist Church v. Davis, 245 Ala. 455, 458, 17 So.2d 533.

In Bailey v. Washington, supra, the suit was for injunctive relief against certain trespasses by respondents in taking possession of the church building and excluding complainants therefrom. This court said:

'It, therefore, follows that the trial court's decree, in dismissing the bill of complaint, was justified, on at least two grounds: First, the failure to make the church a party; and, second, because the evidence fails to sustain the averments of the bill upon which its equity is based.' (236 Ala. at 677, 185 So. at 175)

In Skyline, supra, the suit was to enjoin respondents from conducting services in a church and from trespassing upon the church property. Respondents challenged the authority of attorneys to institute the action in the name of the church. This court concurred in the finding that authority to use the name of the church had not been shown and affirmed the decree discharging a temporary injunction. Affirmance was rested on the ground that the church was a necessary party and was not properly before the court.

Under the pleading and proof in the case at bar, the trial court, in the first instance, and this court, on appeal, have power to declare that the church has no right, title, or interest in the property in controversy. To so declare in a suit in which the church is not a party would offend that fundamental principle of the common law which requires that a party have his day in court before judgment be rendered against him. Where, as here, the question for decision is the title to the church land and building, we are of opinion that the church, whether incorporated or not, is a necessary party.

The 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. Skyline, supra.

Although the church is a necessary party to the instant suit, and even though there be no rightful authority to make it a party complai...