Harrison v. Bishop

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: YARBROUGH, P.J.
• Citation: Harrison v. Bishop, 44 N.E.3d 350 (Ohio App. 2015)
• Decision Date: 18 December 2015
• Docket Number: No. L–14–1137.,L–14–1137.
• Parties: Langston HARRISON, Jr. et al., Appellants v. Raymond G. BISHOP, Jr., et al., Appellees.

44 N.E.3d 350

Langston HARRISON, Jr. et al., Appellants

v.Raymond G. BISHOP, Jr., et al., Appellees.

No. L–14–1137.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Lucas County.

Dec. 18, 2015.

David A. Bryan, Toledo, and Nathan H. Zechman, for appellants.

Stuart J. Goldberg, Jeffrey M. Stopar and Neema M. Bell, Toledo, for appellees.

YARBROUGH, P.J.

I. Introduction

{¶ 1} Appellants, Langston Harrison, Jr., James Martin, John Rambus, and Eddie Ransom, appeal the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, granting appellees' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Civ.R. 12(B)(1).

A. Facts and Procedural Background

{¶ 2} On August 30, 2012, appellants, in their individual capacities and as members of Mt. Pilgrim Baptist Church, Inc., a nonprofit corporate congregational church, filed a complaint against appellees, Raymond Bishop, Jr., Kevin Gregory, Sr., Debrah Harleston, Gloria Mathis, LeRoyna Drayton, Patricia Ellis, DeLise Simmons, Tracy Brown, and Suzette Cowell, in their capacities as directors and former directors of the church. Bishop is also the Senior Pastor of the church.

{¶ 3} According to the complaint, the dispute giving rise to this case began on July 20, 2011, when appellees took de facto control of the Mt. Pilgrim Baptist Church and its assets. Prior to appellees' alleged takeover of the church, the church's Board of Deacons passed a resolution seeking Bishop's dismissal for misappropriation of church property. However, Bishop refused to step down as senior pastor of the church.

{¶ 4} Subsequently, the church held its annual meeting on December 14, 2011. On that date, the church adopted the “Constitution of Mt. Pilgrim Baptist Church, Inc.,” a copy of which was attached to appellants' complaint. The Constitution, which is also the code of regulations of Mt. Pilgrim Baptist Church, Inc., contains numerous references to biblical passages and doctrinal material.

{¶ 5} Since the church's adoption of its Constitution, appellees have allegedly “failed to report to the members of the Church any information concerning the manner in which they have administered the affairs of the Church and have failed to account to the members for the funds they have received or how they have utilized the Church's assets.” Specifically, appellants' alleged that appellees, as leaders of the church and officers of the corporation, failed to present a financial report or budget to the congregation at the December 14, 2011 annual meeting. Further, appellants allege that Bishop (the senior pastor) transferred church funds to an undisclosed location. Appellants are particularly concerned about Bishop's activities in light of a prior instance in which he allegedly misappropriated a church vehicle for his personal use without the approval of church leadership.

{¶ 6} In addition to their contention that appellees have mismanaged the church's finances, appellants also alleged that appellees prevented them from examining the church's books, accounts, and records in violation of R.C. 1702.15. According to the complaint, appellants formally requested certain financial information from appellees on July 13, 2012. Appellees have not provided the requested information.

{¶ 7} The purpose for appellants' request was stated in their complaint as follows:

Plaintiffs' purpose in asking for the Requested Financial Documentation is so they could determine the general financial position of the Church and the manner in which the Defendant Officers and Defendants were administering their offices and performing their duties to preserve Church assets and its unrestricted and restricted funds for the purposes intended by the members of the Church and the donors of same.

{¶ 8} As a result of the foregoing, appellants filed their complaint, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contractual and statutory duties regarding the administration of the church under its constitution. More specifically, appellants alleged that appellees breached their duties under the church's constitution by mismanaging the church's funds, failing to comply with various reporting requirements under the church's constitution, withholding quarterly financial statements from members, and failing to disclose certain financial records upon request. Moreover, appellants alleged that appellees breached their duties under R.C. 1702.15 by refusing to allow appellants to examine the church's books and records. Additionally, appellants sought a declaratory judgment that certain provisions of the church's constitution, involving the church's handling of charitable contributions and members' access to civil courts for the resolution of church disputes, are in violation of federal and/or Ohio law. In particular, appellants alleged that Sections 14.01 and 12.01 of the church constitution are unlawful and unenforceable. Section 14.01 sets forth a process for resolving disputes in a “biblical manner.” Relevant here, Section 14.01 provides:

By joining or retaining membership in this Church, all members, directors, officers and employees agree that these methods shall provide the sole remedy for any dispute arising against or within this Church, and they waive their right to file any legal action against the Church or its directors or officers. (1 Corinthians 6:1–8)

{¶ 9} Section 12.01 of the church's Constitution provides:

From time to time, the Church, in the exercise of its religious, educational, and charitable purposes, may establish various funds to accomplish specific goals. Contributors may suggest uses for their contributions, but all suggestions shall be deemed advisory rather than mandatory in nature. All contributions made to specific funds, or otherwise designated, shall remain subject to the exclusive control and discretion of the Board of Ministry Directors and the Stewardship Committee. No fiduciary obligation shall be created by any designated contribution made to the Church other than to use the contribution for the general furtherance of any purposes stated in Section 2.02.

{¶ 10} In addition to seeking declaratory relief regarding the enforceability of Section 12.01, appellants also petitioned the court to impose a constructive trust on all funds solicited by the church for which a purpose was designated by the donor. Finally, appellants requested an accounting of the church's financial records, including the donations received by the church, financial statements and tax returns, and a copy of the church's “financial prosperity plan.”

{¶ 11} Two months after the filing of the complaint, appellees filed a “joint motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint” under Civ.R. 12(B)(1) and (6). In their motion, appellees asserted that appellants' complaint raises ecclesiastical issues over which the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Alternatively, appellees asserted that appellants, by virtue of their membership in the church and their corresponding assent to the terms of the church's constitution, waived their rights to bring this action by agreeing to “resolve any and all intra-Church conflict * * * internally through an agreed upon procedure governed by biblical principles.”

{¶ 12} On November 30, 2012, appellants filed their memorandum in opposition to appellees' motion to dismiss, in which they argued that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case, as it involves secular issues regarding the enforcement of the provisions set forth in the church's constitution, which is also the code of regulations for Mt. Pilgrim Baptist Church, Inc.

{¶ 13} Before the trial court issued its decision on appellees' motion to dismiss, appellants filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint in order to add an additional claim for breach of fiduciary duty against appellees as officers of the church and members of the church's Board of Ministry Directors.

{¶ 14} Ultimately, on May 30, 2014, the trial court issued its decision on appellees' motion to dismiss and appellants' motion for leave to amend the complaint. In a 95–page opinion, the trial court granted appellees' motion to dismiss and denied appellants' motion for leave to amend the complaint, reasoning that the claims contained in the complaint (including the additional claim proposed in the amended complaint) were ecclesiastical in nature and were, therefore, beyond the subject-matter jurisdiction of the court under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. Appellants' timely appeal followed.

B. Assignments of Error

{¶ 15} On appeal, appellants raise the following assignments of error:

I. The trial court committed reversible error in granting defendants-appellees' Motion to Dismiss and denying plaintiffs-appellants' Motion to File an Amended Complaint because the court below has subject matter jurisdiction to enforce secular rules and standards of conduct that the defendants-appellees imposed upon themselves.

II. The trial court committed reversible error by finding that the Constitution of Mt. Pilgrim Baptist Church purported to be followed by defendants-appellees contains an internal dispute resolution mechanism that is applicable to the claims in plaintiffs-appellants' complaint or proposed amended complaint.

III. The trial court committed reversible error by finding that the Constitution of Mt. Pilgrim Baptist Church purported to be followed by defendants-appellees contains an internal dispute resolution mechanism that provides plaintiffs-appellants an adequate remedy; i.e., a remedy that is not futile.

IV. The trial court committed reversible error by granting defendants-appellees' Motion to Dismiss under Ohio Civil Rule 12(B)(1) and denying plaintiffs-appellants' Motion to Amend their Complaint to add Additional Claims.

{¶ 16} Because all of appellants' assignments of error challenge the trial court's dismissal of this case under Civ.R. 12(B)(1), we will address them simultaneously.

II. Analysis

{¶ 17} In appellan...