Greek Orthodox Cmty. v. Malicourtis

• Decision Date: 04 June 1929
• Parties: GREEK ORTHODOX COMMUNITY et al. v. MALICOURTIS et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

267 Mass. 472

166 N.E. 863

GREEK ORTHODOX COMMUNITY et al.

v.MALICOURTIS et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

June 4, 1929.

Appeal from Superior Court, Middlesex County; F. B. Greenhalge, Judge.

Suit in equity by the Greek Orthodox Community and others against Aristomenis Malicourtis and others. From an interlocutory decree overruling plaintiffs' exceptions and confirming the master's report, and from a final decree of dismissal, complainants appeal. Affirmed.

F. L. Simpson, of Boston, and G. C. Eliades, of Lowell, for appellants.

E. J. Tierney and J. P. Farley, both of Lowell, for appellees.

PIERCE, J.

This is a suit in equity to enforce the terms of an alleged trust, and to restrain the violation thereof by the defendants. The plaintiffs are the Greek Orthodox Community of Lowell, Mass., ‘Holy Trinity,’ (herein referred to as The Community), and certain individuals who claim to be its administrative board; the defendants are other individuals who claim to be its administrative board by reason of a certain election.

The Community is a religious and charitable corporation duly organized under the laws of this Commonwealth on April 20, 1900. Its purposes are the establishment and maintenance of a church to provide religious instruction according to the ritual of the Greek Orthodox Church, and the maintenance of schools for literary and scientific purposes.

On December 28, 1923, the members of the plaintiff corporation adopted a constitution by the terms of which Metropolitan Vassilics Komvopoulos was named metropolitan of America and Canada, and The Community subjected itself religiously and spiritually to him. The management of The Community belonged to the members and was to be carried out by an administrative board of twelve elected by the members with the cooperation of the metropolitan. Provision was made that special regulations, having the force and effect of a constitution, duly composed and validated by the metropolitan, should provide for resources to maintain and promote its educational institutions. It was further provided that the constitution should be in effect from December 28, 1923, the date of its adoption, and ‘should be in effect for four years.’ In January or February, 1924, regulations were adopted by the duly elected administrative board and approved by the metropolitan; these regulations, together with the constitution, were recognized and followed by The Community from the time of adoption through December 28, 1927.

On February 22, 1928, in accordance with the provisions of the constitution, the defendants were elected members of the administrative board. On March 9, 1928, acting as the administrative board, they elected officers; and on April 24, 1928, voted to prepare an amended constitution and regulations and to submit the same to the members for approval on May 30. At a meeting of the members on that date it was voted that the constitution and regulations should be amended, but no specific changes were made. All the charter provisions relative to the calling of the meetings and notices thereof were complied with. Thereafter the defendants held several meetings to prepare proposed amendments to the constitution and regulations; on or about June 23 they circulated to the members of The Community printed copies of the proposed amendments, and called a meeting of The Community for July 6, to vote on them. Prior to July 6 this bill in equity was filed, and, pursuant to stipulation, the meeting was not held and the proposed amendments were not acted upon.

On June 8, 1928, a meeting of The Community was called by a justice of the peace upon petition of five members, under G. L. c. 67, § 12. The individual plaintiffs were elected members of an administrative board, and elected officers from their number. If the defendants were not duly elected, or if for any reason they ceased to hold office, it is agreed that the individual plaintiffs were elected by proper procedure, as provided by statute for the election of directors and officers of a corporation which has no officers.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were not duly elected members of the administrative board because persons, not members of The Community were permitted to participate in the election; that the election was not in cooperation with the metropolitan, as provided in the constitution; that the defendants had repudiated allegiance to the metropolitan and thus ceased to be members of the corporation; that since the election was illegal and void, the defendants never acquired any right to hold or manage the property of the corporation, to interfere with the management of the church or church services, nor to discharge or employ priests, employees or other persons on behalf of the corporation.

The case was referred to a master who, in addition to the foregoing facts, found that there was no evidence that the property of the corporation, which up to the time of this suit was used to carry out the purpose of its creation, ever was or is now devoted to any particular uses or to the ecclesiastical authority or control of Metropolitan Vassilios Komvopoulos or of the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of America and Canada or of any other person or organization, except as appears from the charter and from the constitution and regulations.

The master excluded certain evidence offered by the plaintiffs and contained in the following offer of proof:

‘The complainants offer to show that the respondents did not on February 22, 1928, nor for a long period prior to that time recognize Vassilios Komvopoulos as Metropolitan or Archbishop of the Metropolis of the United States and Canada or of the Greek Orthodox Community ‘Holy Trinity’ of Lowell and that since the year 1924, they had repudiated his ecclesiastical and religious leadership and authority; that they sought offices in said Greek Orthodox Community with the intent and for the purpose to induce said Community to repudiate the ecclesiastical authority of said Komvopoulos and of said Metropolis of the United States and Canada; that it was the intent and purpose of the respondents on and prior to February 22, 1928, to induce and cause said Community to adopt amendments to the Constitution and Regulations of said Community withdrawing its submission to the ecclesiastical and religious authority of said Komvopoulos as Metropolitan and Archbishop and of the said Metropolis of the United States and Canada and to cause said Community and the members thereof to attempt to divert the property of said Community to religious uses and purposes free from the ecclesiastical authority of said Komvopoulos and of said Metropolis of the United States and Canada; that pursuant to said intent and purpose the said respondents purporting to act as Administrative Board of said Greek Orthodox Community and on or about March 20, 1928, discharged the priest who had theretofore been officiating as priest of said Greek Orthodox Community, ‘Holy Trinity,’ and who had been chosen subject to the approval of said Komvopoulos as Metropolitan and purported to appoint a priest without the approval and contrary to the wishes of said Komvopoulos as Metropolitan; and said respondents purporting to act as Administrative Board of said Greek Orthodox Community caused said priest so purporting to be appointed by them to officiate as priest in said Greek Orthodox Community, ‘Holy Trinity’ of Lowell contrary to the wishes and in violation of the directions and orders of said Komvopoulos as said Metropolitan and Bishop; that said respondents in pursuance further of said purpose and intent to repudiate the authority of said Komvopoulos as Metropolitan and of said Metropolis of the United States and Canada prohibited said Komvopoulos to officiate as Metropolitan or priest in said Greek Orthodox Community, ‘Holy Trinity’ of Lowell, and on or about April 24, 1928, began proceedings to induce some of the members of said Greek Orthodox Community to adopt amendments to the Constitution and Regulations of said Community; that said proceedings were instituted with the intent and purpose to divert the property of said Community from ecclesiastical uses under the ecclesiastical authority of said Komvopoulos as Metropolitan and of said Metropolis of the United States and Canada and to use said property for ecclesiastical and religious purposes free from the ecclesiastical authority of any Metropolitan or Archbishop though otherwise according to the doctrines of faith of the Greek Orthodox Faith.

‘The complainants further offer to show that the respondents purporting to act as Administrative Board of the said Greek Orthodox Community and in pursuance of an intent and purpose so to do entertained on and prior to February 22, 1928, and thereafter down to the filing of the bill in equity in this action, have conducted the ecclesiastical affairs of said Greek Orthodox Community in violation of the Constitutionand Regulations of said Community then in force and so recognized by the members of said Community and by said Greek Orthodox Community and free from subjection to the ecclesiastical and religious authority of said Komvopoulos as Metropolitan and Archbishop and of said Metropolis of the United States and Canada.

‘The complainants further offer to prove that said respondents on February 22, 1928, and at all times since that date have entertained the purpose to repudiate the ecclesiastical authority of said Vassilios Komvopoulos as Metropolitan and Archbishop and have repudiated his authority as such Metropolitan contrary to the tenets of the Greek Orthodox Faith and that the respondents on said February 22, 1928, and continuously thereafter have intended to establish a congregational form of government in said Greek Orthodox Community and over said Greek Orthodox Church ‘Holy Trinity’ of Lowell; that said form of ecclesiastical...