Early Church of God in Christ, Inc. v. Jackson

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Bergeron, Presiding Judge.
• Citation: Early Church of God in Christ, Inc. v. Jackson, 200 N.E.3d 757 (Ohio App. 2022)
• Decision Date: 14 November 2022
• Docket Number: C-220115
• Parties: EARLY CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard L. JACKSON, and Joyce E. Raglin, Defendants-Appellees.

200 N.E.3d 757

EARLY CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.Richard L. JACKSON, and Joyce E. Raglin, Defendants-Appellees.

NO. C-220115

Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton County.

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: November 14, 2022

Frost Brown Todd LLC, Charles B. Galvin, West Chester, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

V. Gayle Miller, for Defendants-Appellees.

OPINION.

Bergeron, Presiding Judge.

{¶1} A dying bishop, a simmering feud over his successor, and allegations of misappropriated assets provide the backdrop to this church property dispute. Plaintiff-appellant Early Church of God in Christ, Inc., ("ECOGIC") sued defendants-appellees Richard Jackson and Joyce Raglin (erstwhile leaders of ECOGIC) for misappropriation of church property and assets. The trial court, however, sua sponte dismissed the complaint, finding that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine stripped it of subject matter jurisdiction and compelled dismissal. ECOGIC now appeals, and based on our review of the allegations in the complaint, we find that claims two and three (for breach of fiduciary duties and demand for an accounting) satisfy the minimal requirements necessary to survive dismissal at the pleading stage. By contrast, the first count (for trespass), frames a purely ecclesiastical dispute, and we accordingly affirm that aspect of the trial court's decision. We accordingly reverse the trial court's decision in part, affirm it in part, and remand this cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I.

{¶2} ECOGIC, a nonprofit corporation, operates two churches, both located in the greater Cincinnati area. The "Guide to Govern the Early Church of Christ" ("ECOGIC Guide") governs all facets of ECOGIC's operations, and its board of elders presides over matters of governance. When the events at issue arose, the elders included Senior Bishop Rufus L. Bryant, Junior Bishop John T. McCauley, and Mr. Jackson (in addition to several other congregants). Ms. Raglin served as a secretary and a pastor for ECOGIC.

{¶3} In October 2021, a number of individuals within ECOGIC's congregation received a letter that purported to be authored by then-Senior Bishop Bryant. The letter ostensibly followed a meeting at which he allegedly demoted Mr. McCauley from his role as junior bishop, while simultaneously elevating Mr. Jackson to the role of assistant bishop. The letter caused quite a stir among the congregation. Some members questioned its authenticity, given that Senior Bishop Bryant was in failing health, and in fact passed away shortly thereafter in November. Moreover, according to the ECOGIC Guide, the then-senior bishop lacked the authority to demote Mr. McCauley and elevate Mr. Jackson without proper approval by the board of elders or the church's general assembly (neither of which, as we understand it, had occurred).

{¶4} Over the next few months, a majority of the elders voted to appoint Mr. McCauley as interim presiding bishop until ECOGIC's annually-scheduled general assembly meeting in August 2022, where an official vote for senior bishop would occur. Disregarding this action, Mr. Jackson, with the assistance of Ms. Raglin, planned a consecration ceremony at one of ECOGIC's churches to install himself as bishop, and continued to promote the ceremony even after receiving a cease and desist letter from ECOGIC. ECOGIC generally claims that Mr. Jackson and Ms. Raglin utilized their positions of trust and misappropriated church property, as they effectively seized control of certain church assets, including bank accounts.

{¶5} Unable to resolve the dispute, in March 2022, ECOGIC filed a complaint against Mr. Jackson and Ms. Raglin. In it, ECOGIC asserted claims for trespass, breach of fiduciary duty, and a demand for an accounting and inspection of assets and records within defendants’ exclusive control. At the same time, ECOGIC filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction with the trial court, seeking to enjoin the misappropriation of assets. The afternoon of the filing, the trial court issued an order granting the motion for a temporary restraining order. The following day, however, the trial court reversed course, sua sponte vacating the temporary restraining order and dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. ECOGIC now appeals.

II.

{¶6} In its sole assignment of error, ECOGIC maintains that the trial court erred in dismissing its complaint sua sponte. Specifically, ECOGIC insists that the issues raised in its complaint present purely secular questions that courts can resolve through the application of neutral principles of law. ECOGIC also faults the trial court for failing to provide notice to it before dismissing its complaint.

{¶7} Appellate courts conduct a de novo review of a trial court's decision to dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1). Bla-Con Indus., Inc. v. Miami Univ. , 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2006-06-127, 2007-Ohio-785, 2007 WL 572359, ¶ 7. "This [review] involves a determination of whether the complaint raised any cause of action cognizable by the forum in which it was filed." Id. In determining its jurisdiction over the matter, "the court is not required to accept the allegations of the complaint as true but may take into account facts established in the record." Duke Energy One, Inc. v. Cincinnati State Technical and Community College , 2022-Ohio-924, 187 N.E.3d 28, ¶ 12 (1st Dist.).

A.

{¶8} Before we turn to the questions at hand, we provide some context on the history of church property disputes. Our jumping-off point for this inquiry is 1871, where the United States Supreme Court, in Watson v. Jones , 80 U.S. 679, 13 Wall. 679, 20 L.Ed. 666 (1871), upheld the command of the First Amendment to abstain from interfering in disputes within religious organizations concerning religious practice, doctrine, or internal organization—principles reflected in the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. But that doctrine does not preclude courts from wading into any disputes involving religious entities. Watson at 714 ("Religious organizations come before [civil courts] in the same attitude as other voluntary associations for benevolent or charitable purposes, and their rights of property, or of contract, are equally under the protection of the law, and the actions of their members subject to its restraints."). As the Supreme Court recognizes, courts do have certain (and relatively confined) roles in adjudicating church-related disputes consistent with the mandates of the First Amendment.

{¶9} In Watson , the Supreme Court confronted a schism within a church that resulted in two distinct bodies of members, each claiming the exclusive use of the property owned by that church. Id. at 714. In response, the Court crafted a two-part framework for courts to approach church property disputes that distinguishes "congregational" churches from "hierarchical" churches. Congregational churches are those which, "by the nature of [their] organization, [are] strictly independent of other ecclesiastical associations, and so far as church government is concerned, owe[ ] no fealty or obligation to any higher authority." Id. at 722. When approaching a property dispute within a congregational church, civil courts should apply the "ordinary [legal] principles which govern voluntary associations." Id. at 725.

{¶10} Hierarchical churches, on the other hand, are those "where the religious congregation or ecclesiastical body holding the property is but a subordinate member of some general church organization in which there are superior ecclesiastical tribunals with a general and ultimate power of control * * * over the whole membership of that general organization." Id. at 722-723. When faced with a dispute within a hierarchical church, "whenever the questions of discipline, or of faith, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law have been decided by the highest of these church judicatories to which the matter has been carried, the legal tribunals must accept such decisions as final, and as binding on them." Id. at 727. This is because, according to the Watson court, "[a]ll who unite themselves to such a [religious] body do so with an implied consent to this government, and are bound to submit to it." Id. at 729. And "[i]t would be a vain consent and would lead to the total subversion of such religious bodies, if any one aggrieved by one of [a religious body's] decisions could appeal to the secular courts and have them reversed." Id.

{¶11} Over a century later, the Supreme Court would elaborate on its approach to church property disputes in Jones v. Wolf , 443 U.S. 595, 99 S.Ct. 3020, 61 L.Ed.2d 775 (1979). In Jones , a hierarchical church sought resolution of a property dispute wherein a majority of its members voted to separate from the church and appropriated property from the original church to establish their new sect. Id. at 597, 99 S.Ct. 3020. Confronted with the issue of whether courts may resolve church property disputes on the basis of "neutral principles of law," or whether they must defer to the resolution of an authoritative tribunal of the hierarchical church even where no issue of doctrinal controversy is involved, the Court delved into the mandates of the First Amendment and Watson . Id. at 602, 99 S.Ct. 3020.

{¶12} The Court began by noting that, besides the limitations of the First Amendment and precedent, no authority establishes a particular method that a civil court must follow in resolving church property disputes. Id. Here, the Supreme Court ultimately endorsed Georgia's use of the "neutral principles of law" approach in the case below, finding this approach to comport with constitutional requirements. Under the neutral principles approach, "a State is constitutionally entitled to adopt neutral principles of law as a means of adjudicating a church property dispute." Id. at...