King v. Tatum (Ex parte Tatum)

• Decision Date: 10 July 2015
• Docket Number: 1131368.
• Citation: 185 So.3d 434 (Mem)
• Parties: Ex parte Cornell L. TATUM, Sr., et al. (In re Marlin King et al. v. Cornell L. Tatum, Sr., et al.).
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

185 So.3d 434 (Mem)

Ex parte Cornell L. TATUM, Sr., et al.

(In re Marlin King et al.

v.Cornell L. Tatum, Sr., et al.).

1131368.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 10, 2015.

Kenneth Shinbaum and Julian McPhillips of McPhillips, Shinbaum, LLP, Montgomery, for petitioners.

Brian P. Strength of Strength & Connally, LLC, Tuskegee, for respondents.

PARKER, Justice.¹

PETITION DENIED. NO OPINION.

STUART, BOLIN, SHAW, MAIN, WISE, and BRYAN, JJ., concur.

PARKER, J., concurs specially.

MOORE, C.J., and MURDOCK, J., dissent.

PARKER, Justice (concurring specially).

I agree with this Court's decision to deny the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Cornell L. Tatum, Sr., Charlie Hardy, and Charles Lancaster ("the petitioners"). I write specially to emphasize that a circuit court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to apply judicial notions of due process to church proceedings when the highest adjudicatory body of a church decides a purely ecclesiastical matter. Additionally, I write to note that a circuit court may recognize a decision by the highest adjudicatory body of a church concerning a purely ecclesiastical matter and, based on that decision, enjoin persons from taking unauthorized actions on behalf of the church.

To understand the limited scope of the ecclesiastical matter in the present case, a recitation of the facts before this Court is necessary. On December 14, 2008, the Greenwood Missionary Baptist Church ("the church") adopted a set of bylaws entitled "Bylaws for the Governance of Greenwood Missionary Baptist Church" ("the bylaws"). The bylaws, which vest the governance of the church in its members, state:

"The governance of [the church] shall be vested in the members who compose it, and, as such, it is subject to the control of no other ecclesiastical organization. Also, none of its boards, committees or officers can usurp its executive, governmental or policy-making powers except as provided for in these bylaws."

The bylaws mandate that a board of deacons ("the board") be established for the church. The board is responsible for holding in trust all property belonging to the church, determining the use of the church building for all non-religious purposes, designating the financial institution at which church funds are deposited, and securing the services of all staff at a salary authorized by the church. The board is "ordained to their work according to Acts 6:1–8 and 1 Timothy 3:8–13."²

The bylaws set forth the following procedure by which deacons are selected:

"Church members shall first nominate candidates to the Pastor and Chair of [the board]. On recommendation of the board the candidates are presented to the congregation. At a church meeting, [the board] shall make its recommendation to the [c]hurch. Those persons to be accepted by the [c]hurch to fill the office of Deacon must meet the standards as listed in [Acts 6:1–8 and 1 Timothy 3:8–13]. Candidates for Deaconship will then receive training and preparation for their tasks. At the end of this period and upon recommendation to the [c]hurch by the Pastor, the candidate(s) shall be ordained."

The bylaws also require that individual deacons "shall actively hold office provided they faithfully discharge their duties." Furthermore, the bylaws state that "[t]he [c]hurch may, for good and sufficient cause, remove any Deacon from office at any appropriate time it deems necessary."

Prior to April 20, 2014, the petitioners were deacons of the church. On April 20, 2014, the congregation of the church called a meeting at which the members of the church who attended unanimously passed a motion to remove the petitioners from their positions as deacons.

Following the April 20, 2014, meeting, a letter was sent to the board, purportedly on behalf of the church. The letter advised the board, in pertinent part:

"The congregation of [the church] called a church meeting on Sunday, April 20, 2014. Attending members discussed, moved, and voted to remove [the petitioners] as Deacons effective immediately. Their authoritative and repeated Pastor-removal communications/activities with complete disregard for the church governance by the church body were included in the expressions of the body. Also expressed was that the spirt of their communications and actions was not perceived as coming from God's Spirit."

The letter is signed "The Greenwood Missionary Baptist Church" and states "see attached for signatures." Included with the letter is an attachment entitled "Greenwood Missionary Baptist Church Church Meeting." The attachment is dated April 20, 2014, and contains 95 signatures; nothing before this Court indicates how many members are in the church.

On April 21, 2014, a letter was sent to each of the petitioners, purportedly on behalf of the church. Each letter stated, in pertinent part:

"By executing Article VIII, Section 1 (Church Boards and Ministries) [of the bylaws] which reads, ‘The [c]hurch may, for good and sufficient cause, remove any Deacon from office at any appropriate time it deems necessary,’ the membership of [the church] have voted on a motion to remove you as a Deacon on [the board] of [the church]. Thus, effective April 20, 2014, you are no longer a Deacon at the [c]hurch. All activities associated with your previous office as Deacon should cease effective April 20, 2014, as you have already been notified by letter of the church's decision on that date."

On April 24, 2014, Tatum sent a letter addressed to "Members of Greenwood Missionary Baptist Church," which stated, in pertinent part:

"This is an official notice from [the board] regarding the unofficial meeting held in the Kelly Smith House on Sunday April 20, 2014. [The church] has established Policies and Bylaws that were not followed. Therefore, [the board] in a called meeting on April 22, 2014, rendered all actions taken in this meeting and communications sent to [the petitioners], are null and void without standing and fail to abide by the [b]ylaws of the [c]hurch."

It is undisputed that Marlin King, Deborah Banks, and Helen King ("the plaintiffs") are members in good standing of the church. On June 5, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a complaint against the petitioners before Judge Thomas Young in the Macon Circuit Court ("the circuit court") requesting: 1) "an order enjoining [the petitioners] from taking any act as a member of [the board] of [the church]," and 2) "an [o]rder declaring that the recent votes of the congregation are valid and that [the petitioners] have been removed as members of [the board]." The plaintiffs filed their complaint "on behalf of themselves and the concerned members of [the church]."

On July 18, 2014, the petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint, alleging that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The petitioners alleged, in part, that "[t]his case involves religious and ecclesiastical matters concerning who and who is not a member of [the board] and Board of Trustees of [the church], which is a religious matter that should be decided by [the board] and Board of Trustees of [the church]."

On July 21, 2014, the circuit court held a hearing at which the petitioners' motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction was discussed. On July 25, 2014, the circuit court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the petitioners from "undertaking any act as a member of [the board] of [the church] including any participation in Deacon meetings or performing any duties or responsibilities of a deacon while this order is in effect." On July 29, 2014, the circuit court denied the petitioners' motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

On August 27, 2014, the petitioners petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the circuit court to vacate its order denying their motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the petitioners did not ask this Court to direct the circuit court to vacate the preliminary injunction.

Before this Court the petitioners allege, in part, that the circuit court exceeded its discretion when it denied the petitioners' motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Specifically, the petitioners argue that the circuit court exceeded its discretion because, the petitioners argue, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution deprives the circuit court of subject-matter jurisdiction and because, the petitioners argue, the circuit court purportedly violated the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment ("ARFA"), Ala. Const.1901, Art. I, § 3.01.

The petitioners allege that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution deprives the circuit court of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing as follows:

"In the present case three members of [the church] ... want the Judiciary Branch of the Government of the State of Alabama to interpret ambiguous bylaws of [the church] and to decide internal disputes of [the church], without making [the church] a party to the case and without giving [the church] an opportunity to decide the interpretation of its own bylaws and to decide its own internal disputes. The Judiciary Branch does not have subject matter 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 Clause of the First Amendment, a state court has jurisdiction over a church dispute:

"With regard to a state court's jurisdiction over a church in the face of a First Amendment challenge, this Court has stated:

" ‘As is the case with all churches, the courts will not assume jurisdiction, in fact has none, to resolve disputes regarding their spiritual or ecclesiastical affairs. However, there is jurisdiction to resolve questions of civil or property rights. Williams v. Jones, 258 Ala. 59, 61 So.2d 101 (1952).’ "

103 So.3d at 53 (quoting Abyssinia Missionary Baptist Church v....