Higgs v. Bole (Ex parte Bole)
Decision Date | 31 August 2012 |
Docket Number | 1110868 and 1110892. |
Citation | 103 So.3d 40 |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Parties | Ex parte Tom BOLE. (In re Lawton Higgs, Sr. v. Tom Bole). Ex parte Reverend Ron Schultz. (In re Lawton Higgs, Sr. v. Tom Bole). |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
John R. Lavette of Morris & Lavette, PC, Birmingham, for petitioner Tom Bole.
Terry McElheny of Dominick Feld Hyde, P.C., Birmingham, for petitioner Reverend Ron Schultz.
Donald W. Stewart and John E. Lawes of Stewart & Stewart, P.C., Bessemer, for respondent.
Lawton Higgs, Sr., formerly a pastor and pastor emeritus at the Church of the Reconciler (“COR”), a United Methodist church, brought an action in the Jefferson Circuit Court against Tom Bole, a lay member of COR, alleging defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. During the proceedings, Higgs filed a civil subpoena requesting the production of certain documents from Reverend Ron Schultz, the district supervisor of the South Central District of the North Alabama Conference of the United Methodist Church (“the Conference”). Reverend Schultz filed a verified objection to and a motion to quash the civil subpoena based on First Amendment concerns. Subsequently, Bole filed a motion to dismiss the claims against him, alleging that the trial court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims based on the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; the trial court denied Bole's motion. The trial court later entered an order in which it granted in part and denied in part Reverend Schultz's motion to quash. In case no. 1110868, Bole petitioned for a writ of mandamus requesting that this Court dismiss Higgs's claims against him. In case no. 1110892, Reverend Schultz petitioned for a writ of mandamus asking this Court to quash the subpoena in its entirety on the basis that the records subpoenaed by Higgs were privileged, ecclesiastical records of the United Methodist Church. We grant the petition in case no. 1110868 and dismiss the petition in case no. 1110892.
Higgs served as the pastor of COR from 1993 until he retired in 2005. After he retired, Higgs continued to serve in the capacity of pastor emeritus and as a full-time volunteer at COR. His responsibilities as pastor emeritus were “[t]o be present, to give spiritual leadership and create an environment of hope and care for the participants there, particularly during the day program.” (Higgs's deposition, at p. 14.) He also testified that he was the president of the Board of the Reconciler Development, Inc. (“RDI”), a nonprofit corporation committed to providing resources for the homeless and to raising funds to help support the operating budget of COR. Higgs's son, Kevin Higgs (“Kevin”), was a senior minister at COR.
In his affidavit, Bole stated that he had served in COR's ministry to the homeless, had served on COR's financial committee, had served on COR's personnel board, and had served as COR's banquet and auction chair. Bole stated that the pastor and board of COR had asked him “to undertake to organize its financial records” and that he “undertook to do so.” He also stated that in early 2011 Reverend Schultz asked him “to report to him on matters concerning the financial affairs and governance at COR.” On March 18, 2011, Bole wrote a letter to Reverend Schultz, stating:
“There has also been cash missing from the offering before it could be counted and deposited.
“The church received a $15,000 check from Crumly Chapel UMC and a $5,000 check from independent Presbyterian Church which were also comingled and unaccounted for.
“In closing, while I do not know what the answer is, I do know that there will soon be a mass volunteer exodus if changes are not made.”
Subsequently, Reverend Schultz sent a letter dated March 31, 2011, to Higgs. That letter stated, in pertinent part:
The Conference issued a “Resolution of Complaint” (“the resolution”) dated May 23, 2011. The resolution stated, in pertinent part:
“It is normal procedure to suspend clergy while investigations are conducted. In this case however, in lieu of suspension, the Cabinet directed the Reverends Higgs[es] to step away from the ministry and take an extended vacation while the investigation was conducted. This was done so that Rev. Kevin Higgs' medical insurance coverage and pension would remain intact.
“The Bishop and Cabinet find the financial records of [COR] to be in shambles. The only clear and accurate financial statement that can be produced for this ministry is for the year 2010. There is evidence of carrying large credit debt on high interest credit cards, missing payments and incurring penalties, paying minimum payments and thus increasing the debt through high interest charges. There is also evidence that Rev. Higgs Sr. (Retired) overstepped his authority and directed [COR] funds to be used to pay debts incurred by a 501.3c [sic] entity established by Rev. Higgs Sr. to address housing needs of the homeless community. There is also evidence that on one occasion grant money was used by [COR] for needs other than those specified in the Grant.
“....
“We find no evidence indicating a need to pursue formal charges against these ministers.
“The Complaint against Rev. Kevin Higgs and Rev. Lawton Higgs Sr. is hereby dismissed.”
On May 26, 2011, Reverend Schultz sent out an e-mail to several different recipients. The subject line of the e-mail was “Church of the Reconciler update.” In the e-mail, Schultz stated:
“Thank you for your patience over the last several weeks as the Disciplinary process has been followed regarding the complaints filed against Kevin and Lawton Higgs.
“I am pleased to share with you that the Bishop and Cabinet are satisfied that a just resolution has been reached and that no evidence has been found that would lead to judicial charges.
“Therefore the complaint is dismissed and Kevin remains a minister in good standing with the North Alabama Conference and Lawton remains in good standing in his retired relationship.
“....
“As we...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
King v. Tatum (Ex parte Tatum)
...jurisdiction to decide such a case because the religious freedom provision of the First Amendment3 would be violated. Ex parte Bole, [103 So.3d 40, 50 (Ala.2012) ]."In Ex parte Bole, 103 So.3d 40 (Ala.2012), this Court set out the standard for determining whether, under the Free Exercise Cl......
-
Hopkins v. Rich
...go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society.'" Ex parte Bole, 103 So.3d 40, 52 (Ala.2012) (citations omitted); Thomas v. Williams, 21 So.3d 1234, 1237-1238 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). Additionally, "[t]here are no repor......
-
Davis v. Self
...1172–73 (Ala.2011). Even so, that does not necessarily imply that the tort “is viable in only th[ose] three circumstances.” Ex parte Bole, 103 So.3d 40, 53 (Ala.2012) (alteration supplied). “By far the most significant element, normally dispositive of a plaintiff's prospects of recovery, is......
-
Livingston v. Marion Bank & Trust Co.
...that Defendants are liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress, otherwise known as the tort of “outrage.” See Ex parte Bole, 103 So.3d 40, 52 (Ala.2012). The Alabama Supreme Court has explained as follows with regard to this cause of action:[O]ne who by extreme and outrageous c......
-
Amazon's Prime Reliance on the First Amendment's Free Expression Protections in Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc.
...Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc., 6 F.4th at 1247.16. Id. at 1250-51. 17. Id. at 1256.18. Id. at 1251-52. (quoting Ex parte Bole, 103 So. 3d 40, 51 (Ala. 2012)).19. Id. at 1252.20. Id. (quoting Milkovich v. Lorain J. Co., 497 U.S. 1, 21 (1990)).21. 376 U.S. 254 (1964).22. Id. at 256.23. T......