Shannon v. Hines
| Citation | 21 S.W.3d 839 |
| Parties | (Mo.App. E.D. 1999) Shelby E. Shannon, Respondent v. Charles Hines Jr., Appellant Case Number: ED75148 Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Handdown Date: |
| Decision Date | 28 December 1999 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Michael F. Godfrey
Counsel for Appellant: Daniel L. Hohs
Counsel for Respondent: Harold L. Whitfield
Opinion Summary: Charles Hines, Jr. et al. appeal from a permanent injunction prohibiting Hines from taking any position as pastor of Temple #29 of the Church of the Living God unless appointed by the Chief Bishop and Respondent Shelby E. Shannon, and prohibiting Hines et al. from participating in any activity at Temple #29 until each reapplied for membership, and ordering the property at issue returned.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
Division Two holds: Although it is his duty to insure that congregations within his district operate in accordance with Church rules and regulations, Shannon's position within the Church is insufficient to make him a real party in interest. Accordingly, he lacked standing to bring the action.
Opinion Vote: REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Crane, P.J. and R. Dowd, J., concur.
Appellants Charles Hines, Jr., et al., ("Appellants") appeal from a Permanent Injunction and Final Order and Judgment. We find the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the action because Respondent Shelby E. Shannon ("Respondent") lacked standing to bring the action. Reversed and remanded with directions to the trial court to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Church of the Living God ("Church") is a Missouri corporation established in 1922. As a corporation, the Church is controlled by an executive board that must approve any decisions affecting the corporation. A local pastor makes the day-to-day decisions affecting a particular congregation or "temple." Each congregation also has trustees who oversee the financial affairs and upkeep of each temple's property. Groups of congregations are divided into districts over which a bishop presides.
The Church is governed by rules and regulations provided in the Church's constitution. Pursuant to this constitution, the chief bishop of the Church appoints local pastors to congregations for a one-year term. In August 1995, Chief Bishop W.E. Crumes ("Crumes") appointed Charles Hines, Jr. ("Hines") as pastor of Temple #29. Temple #29 is located in the Church's District Two. Respondent is the district bishop for District Two, and thus he supervised Hines while he was Temple #29's pastor. Hines served three terms as Temple #29's pastor, being reappointed twice by Crumes.
On August 16, 1998, at the Church's annual meeting, Crumes, in accordance with Respondent's recommendation, did not reappoint Hines as Temple #29's pastor, but rather he appointed Garland Williams, effective immediately. On August 17, two of Temple #29's trustees issued a check in the amount of $1,165.71 from Temple #29's account to Hines as reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses Hines and his wife incurred attending the Church's annual meeting. The trustees also withdrew the balance of the account, $19,594.03, and a certificate of deposit worth about $10,000 and moved these monies to an undisclosed location.
On August 23, 1998, Hines presided over services at Temple #29. Pursuant to the Church's constitution, Hines also filed a written appeal with the Church's executive board. The constitution provides that "[n]o minister or member of the Church... shall go before the law or courts for questioning against a minister, member, or temple until said matter, case, or cases involving the church have been heard and tried before the executive board of the... church."
On August 25, 1998, without seeking a hearing on the matter before the Church's executive board but with verbal authorization from Crumes, Respondent filed a Petition for Temporary Restraining Order against Appellants. The trial court granted this order the next day concluding that "if defendants are permitted to continue their activities in violation of the Order established in the Constitution of the Church of The Living God, plaintiff and all members of the brotherhood, and members of Temple #29 of the corporate Church of the Living God will be seriously and irreparably injured."
Subsequently, a majority contingent of Temple #29's congregation filed a grievance with the Church's executive board requesting a hearing to determine if Hines should be reinstated as Temple #29's pastor.
On September 24, 1998, the trial court entered a Permanent Injunction and Final Order and Judgment against Appellants. The injunction prohibits Hines from taking any position as pastor of Temple #29 unless appointed by Crumes and Respondent to do so. It also prohibits Appellants from participating in any activity at Temple #29 until each reapplies for membership. Further, the property at issue was ordered returned.
Rule 52.011...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bellistri v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
...(Mo. banc 1989). Standing requires the party to be sufficiently affected so as to ensure a justiciable controversy. Shannon v. Hines, 21 S.W.3d 839, 841 (Mo.App. E.D.1999). Therefore, a party "must have some actual, justiciable interest." Id. They must have a recognizable stake. Wahl v. Bra......
-
Singer v. Siedband
..."The party must be sufficiently affected so as to insure that a justiciable controversy is presented to the court." Shannon v. Hines, 21 S.W.3d 839, 841 (Mo.App. E.D.1999). Without standing, a court has no power to grant relief. State ex rel. Mink v. Wallace, 84 S.W.3d 127, 129 (Mo.App. E.D......
-
Welch v. Davis
...v. Guaranty Land Title Company, 571 S.W.2d 702, 706 (Mo.App.1978). Closely related is the doctrine of standing. See Shannon v. Hines, 21 S.W.3d 839, 841 (Mo.App.1999). Standing requires that a party seeking relief have a legally cognizable interest in the subject matter of his suit and a th......
-
Wilson v. Cramer
...has a legally cognizable interest in the subject matter and that the party has a threatened or actual injury.” Shannon v. Hines, 21 S.W.3d 839, 841 (Mo.App. E.D.1999). Section 210.826 governs who has standing to bring a paternity Jefferson v. Jefferson, 137 S.W.3d 510, 517 (Mo.App. E.D.2004......