Kennedy v. Gray

• Decision Date: 15 March 1991
• Docket Number: No. 65418,65418
• Citation: 807 P.2d 670,248 Kan. 486
• Parties: Arthur C. KENNEDY, Donald L. Davis, Ventrola Purnell, Russell Fears, Ulyses Prince, Allen White, Dorothy O. Mouton, Cecil D. Johnson, Nora Favors, Rose M. Johnson, Willie S. Robertson, and Lillian Harrington, Appellants, v. David L. GRAY, Henry J. Parker, Cunnie Randle, Harold Holmes, Woodrow McCoy, Cecilia Alexander, Vickie Dewick, and Ethel Davis, Appellees.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 670

807 P.2d 670

248 Kan. 486

Arthur C. KENNEDY, Donald L. Davis, Ventrola Purnell,

Russell Fears, Ulyses Prince, Allen White, Dorothy O.

Mouton, Cecil D. Johnson, Nora Favors, Rose M. Johnson, Willie S. Robertson, and Lillian Harrington, Appellants, v. David L. GRAY, Henry J. Parker, Cunnie Randle, Harold

Holmes, Woodrow McCoy, Cecilia Alexander, Vickie

Dewick, and Ethel Davis, Appellees.

No. 65418.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

March 15, 1991.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Summary judgment should rarely be granted as long as pretrial discovery remains incomplete.

2. When a church has its own tribunal and its own rules and procedures for the determination of its internal affairs and no civil or property rights are involved, the decision of the tribunal or church body given authority by rule or usage is ordinarily binding upon civil courts.

3. The First and Fourteenth Amendments permit hierarchical religious organizations to establish their own rules and regulations for internal discipline and government and to create tribunals for adjudicating disputes over these matters. When this choice is exercised and ecclesiastical tribunals are created to decide disputes over the government and direction of subordinate bodies, the Constitution requires that civil courts accept tribunal decisions as binding upon the courts.

4. A congregational church is free to adopt constitutions, bylaws, and internal rules which will alter or regulate its proceedings. In the absence of voluntarily adopted rules, each congregation functions as a pure democracy.

5. A member of a congregational church, seeking the aid of a court in protecting his or her civil and property rights, may appeal only to the simple and fundamental principles of democratic government which are universally accepted in our society. These principles include the right to reasonable notice, the right to attend and advocate one's views, and the right to an honest count of any votes. Such rights are fundamental to our notions of due process.

6. In a congregational church subject to the pure democracy rule, when a majority of the membership has spoken concerning internal affairs after giving the affected member reasonable notice and the right to attend and advocate that member's views, and an honest count of the votes has been given, the governing body of the church then has expressed its will and, as in the case of a hierarchical church, its decision is constitutionally immune from judicial review.

7. If a congregational church provides a procedure for expulsion of a member, a good faith effort to follow that procedure must be made.

8. A congregational church member has a right under common law principles to a fairly conducted meeting on the question of expulsion, and that includes reasonable notice, the right to attend and speak against the proposed action, and the right to an honest count of the vote. In the absence of church law or usage, a majority vote of the members present at a regular Sunday service prevails on expulsion. Expulsion from membership does not require formal evidence, the right to counsel, or the right to present witnesses (unless church rules so require).

David R. Nachman, Brown & Thiessen, P.C., argued the cause, and Thomas C. Brown and Gregory M. Garvin, Brown & Thiessen, P.C., Kansas City, Mo., and Eldon J. Shields, Gates & Clyde, Chartered, Overland Park, were with him on the briefs, for appellants.

John J. Jurcyk, Jr., McAnany, Van Cleave & Phillips, P.A., Kansas City, argued the cause, and Daniel F. Church, of the same firm, was with him on the brief, for appellees.

Michael K. Whitehead, Gen. Counsel, Christian Life Commission, Washington, D.C., and Timothy R. Brownlee, Shawnee, were on the brief, for amicus curiae The Christian Life Com'n of Southern Baptist Convention.

ABBOTT, Justice:

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs in a suit for an accounting of the financial affairs of an unincorporated, independent congregational church.

The trial court dismissed the suit because the plaintiffs, after the suit was filed, were expelled from membership in the church, and the trial court concluded they no longer had standing to maintain the suit. The trial court held it could not inquire into the regularity of the expulsion because it was an "ecclesiastical" action by a religious body. This appeal followed, and the issue is whether the trial court erred by holding that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Section 7 of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the State of Kansas prohibit a court from hearing this case.

The twelve plaintiffs in this case were members, and still claim to be members, of Pleasant Green Baptist Church (Church). The Church was started in 1914, when several families moved to Kansas from Mississippi, where they had been members of the Pleasant Green Baptist Church. When they started a church in their new home, they gave it the same name. One of the plaintiffs, Lillian Harrington, was a member of one of those families and has been a church member since the church was founded (76 years). The other plaintiffs have been members ranging from six years to fifty years. The twelve members have an average length of membership in the Church of over 31 years. Six of them were deacons of the Church and the twelve have served the Church in many capacities, ranging from church clerk and Sunday school teacher to usher.

The eight defendants include the Church pastor, the chairman and co-chairman of the deacon board, the chairman of the trustee board, persons with signature authority on the Church's bank accounts, and other members of the Church who control and/or hold title to assets and property for the benefit of the Church and its members. The pastor, David L. Gray, has held that position for thirty years.

Plaintiffs attempted to gain access to information regarding the Church's financial affairs and the use of Church assets and property. They ultimately filed a class action suit on behalf of all members of the Church for both an accounting and for the appointment of a temporary receiver to perform the accounting. Plaintiffs were unsuccessful in obtaining the information they sought through the use of interrogatories, requests for admissions, and requests for production of documents.

Defendants filed their first motion for summary judgment (not the subject of this appeal) in October 1989. Defendants alleged that plaintiffs were expelled as members of the Church at a church meeting on July 30, 1989, the first Sunday after this suit was filed. On January 5, 1990, the trial court denied defendants' motion, stating that there were controverted material issues of fact as to whether there had been any expulsion hearing.

Within two weeks after defendants' first motion for summary judgment was denied, defendants filed their second motion for summary judgment (the subject of this appeal). Defendants, on the second motion for summary judgment, alleged that plaintiffs had been expelled as members of the Church on January 14, 1990, after the regular church service that day.

After defendants filed their second motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs attempted to discover whether Church rules existed regarding expulsion and membership and whether those persons "voting" were members of the Church. Plaintiffs also attempted to discover the existence of any membership list and the names of those persons voting at the alleged expulsion. To that end, plaintiffs served upon defendants additional written discovery requests.

Defendants filed a motion to quash plaintiffs' second discovery request. Defendants noted that the discovery requests all concerned the procedure used to expel the defendants, presuming that procedural due process was due the defendants. Defendants argued that plaintiffs had no right to question the expulsion. The trial court required plaintiffs to respond to defendants' motion for summary judgment without further discovery.

In defendants' second motion for summary judgment, they contended that, at a regular church service, the pastor proposed expelling the plaintiffs because filing suit against the Church was "anti-Bible." Defendants asserted that the motion passed. They argued that courts are without jurisdiction to intervene in church matters and any action taken by the Church cannot be questioned in court. Defendants included affidavits from the pastor stating that the expulsion had occurred, along with a letter to the former members informing them of their expulsion. Defendants also included affidavits of several church members to the effect that such vote was taken. Defendants also filed minutes of the meeting, showing that the vote was taken.

Plaintiffs filed an affidavit of a pastor at another Baptist church, who said that all Baptist churches subscribed to certain rules, including the rule that members must be given notice and an opportunity to answer before any expulsion. Plaintiffs filed affidavits of the expelled members, stating that they had not been given prior notice of expulsion or opportunities to be heard. Many of the plaintiffs' affidavits stated that there are written and unwritten bylaws or procedures of the Church which direct how members may be expelled and that the member who is a target for expulsion is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard. Various plaintiffs stated there had never been an expulsion from membership during the years they were members. (Their years of membership ranged from twenty to fifty years.) All of the plaintiffs denied they had knowledge or notice of the expulsion attempt and thus had no opportunity to be heard.

The trial court found that it was uncontroverted that the January 14 meeting and expulsion had taken place, and the court concluded that it had no power to inquire into the procedure used. The court granted summary judgment for defendants, and this...