Rector v. Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Georgia, Inc.

• Decision Date: 21 November 2011
• Docket Number: No. S10G1909.,S10G1909.
• Citation: 290 Ga. 95,11 FCDR 3631,718 S.E.2d 237
• Parties: RECTOR, WARDENS and VESTRYMEN OF CHRIST CHURCH IN SAVANNAH et al. v. BISHOP OF the EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF GEORGIA, INC. et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

11 FCDR 3631

290 Ga. 95

718 S.E.2d 237

RECTOR, WARDENS and VESTRYMEN OF CHRIST CHURCH IN SAVANNAH et al.

v.BISHOP OF the EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF GEORGIA, INC. et al.

No. S10G1909.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Nov. 21, 2011.

Simpson & Creasy, Neil Alan Creasy, Ellis, Painter, Ratterree & Adams, Paul W. Painter, Jr., Savannah, Winston & Strawn, Gordon A. Coffee, Willaim P. Ferranti, Steffen N. Johnson, for appellants.

Elliot, Blackburn & Gooding, P.C., James L. Elliott, Valdosta, Withers & Lake, Thomas A. Withers, Gillen, David B. Beers, Mary E. Kostel, for appellees.

McNatt, Greene & Peterson, Hugh B. McNatt, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, David H. Gambrell, John Hinton IV, Joshua D. Hawley, John E. Tomlinson, Allen, Forehand & Adams, Jon Vincent Forehead, Moultrie, Edwards & Youmas, Brenda C. Youmas, Moraitakis, Kushel, Pearson & Gardner, Nicholas C. Moraitakis, Atlanta, Jones, Cork & Miller, W. Warren Plowden, Jr., Macon, McGuire Woods, William B. Marianes, amici curiae.NAHMIAS, Justice.

This case involves a dispute over control of property belonging to the oldest church in Georgia, Christ Church in Savannah (“Christ Church”), with a history spanning almost three centuries. As with so many hierarchical church property disputes that end up in court, this case had its genesis in doctrinal positions taken by the general denomination—the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (“Episcopal Church”)—that were opposed by a majority faction of the local congregation. In March 2006, the leadership of the majority faction, which calls itself “Christ Church in Savannah” or CCS, voted to sever Christ Church's 180–year–old ties with the Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Diocese of Georgia (“Georgia Diocese”) without advance notice to the Bishop of the Georgia Diocese. CCS took control of the church property, and in September 2007, the congregation voted to denounce the Episcopal Church and join the Diocese of Soroti in the Anglican Province of Uganda.

The minority faction, which remained loyal to the Episcopal Church, had to find another place to worship. The Georgia Bishop recognized the minority faction, which calls itself “Christ Church Episcopal” or CCE, as the true Christ Church entitled to control of the church property. The Bishop also recognized the rector, wardens, and vestry elected by the minority faction as the rightful leaders of Christ Church. However, CCS refused to surrender the church property.

On November 14, 2007, the Georgia Diocese filed suit against the Rector, Wardens, and Vestrymen of Christ Church in Savannah and the individuals holding those positions (collectively, “CCS”), seeking injunctive relief, damages, and a declaratory judgment that all property of Christ Church is held in trust for the Episcopal Church. The trial court allowed the Episcopal Church to intervene as an additional plaintiff, as well as Christ Church Episcopal and the Rector, Wardens, and Vestry of Christ Church Episcopal (collectively, “CCE”). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

Applying the “neutral principles of law” doctrine approved by the U.S. Supreme Court in Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 602–606, 99 S.Ct. 3020, 61 L.Ed.2d 775 (1979), and applied in several of this Court's cases, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Episcopal Church, the Georgia Diocese, and CCE. The Court of Appeals affirmed. See Rector, Wardens and Vestrymen of Christ Church in Savannah v. Bishop of Episcopal Diocese of Georgia, Inc., 305 Ga.App. 87, 699 S.E.2d 45 (2010) (“ Christ Church v. Bishop ”). Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals relied in part on OCGA §§ 14–5–46 and 14–5–47 in concluding that the property of Christ Church is impressed with an implied trust in favor of the Episcopal Church.

We granted CCS's petition for certiorari to decide whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in applying the neutral principles doctrine, particularly with respect to OCGA §§ 14–5–46 and 14–5–47. As explained below, although those courts may have erred to some extent in their reliance on OCGA §§ 14–5–46 and 14–5–47, they correctly concluded that neutral principles of law show that the property of Christ Church at issue is held in trust for the benefit of the Episcopal Church.¹

1. The parties agree that the Episcopal Church is a hierarchical religious denomination with a three-tiered, representative form of government. At the top is a General

Convention that meets at least once every three years, which consists of a House of Bishops (essentially all active and retired bishops) and a House of Deputies (four lay delegates and four non-bishop clergy elected by each diocese). Church canons, or laws, must be approved by both houses and are then binding on the Episcopal Church and all of its subdivisions. The middle tier is composed of geographically defined dioceses, each of which is governed by an annual diocesan convention, a bishop, and an elected standing committee. At the lowest tier are parishes, which must associate with the diocese where they are located and must agree to be bound by the constitution and canons of the diocese and the Episcopal Church. Each parish congregation is led by a rector elected by the wardens and vestry or directly by the congregation; the rector must then be approved by the bishop. Parishes elect the wardens and vestry as well as representatives to the diocesan convention.

The parties also agree that legal title to the property of Christ Church at issue is held by the corporate entity known as “The Rector, Church Wardens and Vestrymen of Christ Church in Savannah.” See Wardens & Vestrymen of Christ Church v. Mayor & Aldermen of Savannah, 82 Ga. 656, 656, 9 S.E. 537 (1889) ( “ Christ Church v. Savannah ”). The question presented is who controls that property.

As we recently reiterated, secular courts may resolve church property disputes. See Presbytery of Greater Atlanta, Inc. v. Timberridge Presbyterian Church, Inc., 290 Ga. 272, 276–77, 719 S.E.2d 446, 450 (2011) ( “ Timberridge ”). To avoid First Amendment concerns, Georgia courts apply “neutral principles of law” to determine whether the local congregation or the parent, or general, church in a hierarchical denomination like the Episcopal Church has the right to control local church property, while avoiding any inquiry into religious doctrine. See Jones, 443 U.S. at 602–606, 99 S.Ct. 3020; Carnes v. Smith, 236 Ga. 30, 35–39, 222 S.E.2d 322 (1976) (following the “neutral principles of law” approach instead of the “formal title” approach advocated by the dissent).² These neutral principles include deeds and other instruments of title, state statutes, and documents regarding local and general church government. See Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. at 602–606, 99 S.Ct. 3020; Timberridge, 290 Ga. at 276, 719 S.E.2d at 450.

In our review of these materials, we keep in mind that the outcome of church property disputes usually turns on the specific facts presented in the record and that the neutral principle factors are interrelated. See Timberridge, 290 Ga. at 276–77, 719 S.E.2d at 450. Our ultimate goal is to determine “ ‘the intentions of the parties' at the local and national level regarding beneficial ownership of the property at issue as expressed ‘before the dispute erupt(ed)’ in a ‘legally cognizable form.’ ” Id. at 277, 719 S.E.2d at 450 (quoting Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. at 603, 606, 99 S.Ct. 3020).³

(a) Title Instruments.

This case focuses on four parcels of real estate conveyed to “The Rector, Church Wardens and Vestrymen of Christ Church in Savannah” and their predecessors over the course of nearly three centuries. Christ Church acquired title to the church building parcel now known as 28 Bull Street by land grants from the royal government in 1758 and the post-Revolution state government in 1789. Indentures conveyed fee simple interests in the parish house parcel at 18 Abercorn Street in 1940; the first part of the school parcel at 134 Houston Street in 1947; and the parcel containing the two parking lots at the corner of Congress and Drayton Streets in 1994. The remainder of the school parcel was conveyed by warranty deed in 1958.

Although Jones v. Wolf speaks mainly of “deeds” and “conveyances” of the sort at issue in that case, see 443 U.S. at 597, 600–601, 603, 606, 609, 99 S.Ct. 3020, we understand the first neutral principle to be examination of whatever legal instruments of title were used to transfer the property at issue. See id. at 603, n. 3, 99 S.Ct. 3020 (referring to the “ ‘express terms' of a deed, will, or other instrument of church property ownership” (quoting Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. at 722)).⁴ We agree with the trial court and the Court of Appeals that none of the title instruments in this case create a trust in favor of the Episcopal Church. See Christ Church v. Bishop, 305 Ga.App. at 89–90, 699 S.E.2d 45. But they also do not preclude the creation of one. See Timberridge, 290 Ga. at 277, 719 S.E.2d at 451. The Rector, Church Wardens and Vestrymen of Christ Church in Savannah, like other legal titleholders in fee simple, had the authority to place its property in trust or to act in ways that would impress a trust on the property. Given that the instruments of title neither include nor prohibit a trust in favor of the general church, they have a limited role in the neutral principles analysis in this case, and so we turn to consideration of other neutral principles. See id.

(b) Statutes.(1) OCGA §§ 14–5–46 and 14–5–47.

OCGA § 14–5–46, which is entitled “Conveyances to churches or religious societies confirmed,” provides:

All deeds of conveyance executed before April 1, 1969, or thereafter for any lots of land within this state to any person or persons, to any church or religious society, or to trustees for the use of any church or religious society for the purpose of erecting churches or meeting houses shall be deemed to be valid and available...