Smith v. White

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: WELBAUM
• Citation: Smith v. White, 7 N.E.3d 552 (Ohio App. 2014)
• Decision Date: 17 January 2014
• Docket Number: No. 25622.,25622.
• Parties: Jack L. SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants v. Chad A. WHITE, Sr., et al., Defendants–Appellees.

7 N.E.3d 552

Jack L. SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants

v.Chad A. WHITE, Sr., et al., Defendants–Appellees.

No. 25622.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Montgomery County.

Jan. 17, 2014.

Gretchen M. Treherne, Kirstie N. Young, Dayton, OH, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Gordon D. Arnold, Patrick J. Janis, Dayton, OH, for defendants-appellees.

WELBAUM, J.

{¶ 1} Plaintiffs–Appellants, Jack Smith, et. al., appeal from a judgment of dismissal rendered in favor of Defendants–Appellees, Chad White, et. al. ¹ Smith contends that the trial court erred in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because the dispute between the parties is secular. Smith further contends that dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is improper because the case contains allegations of fraud and collusion. Finally, Smith contends that the dismissal was improper because church members attempted to use internal church procedures to resolve the dispute.

{¶ 2} We conclude that the trial court did not err in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The inquiry involved in this case goes to the issue of whether the pastor engaged in wrongdoing, rendering him unqualified as a pastor, and whether the pastor should be removed for misconduct. Courts may not inquire into these matters under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.

{¶ 3} A fraud or collusion exception allowing consideration of ecclesiastical matters is also inapplicable because this case does not involve extraordinary circumstances. Finally, Smith never followed the procedures listed in the governing church documents for resolving the matters at hand. This must have been done before initiation of any potential court action. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

I. Facts and Course of Proceedings

{¶ 4} As was noted, the 36 plaintiffs are members of Mt. Carmel Missionary Baptist Church (Mt. Carmel). Five plaintiffs are trustees at the church, and three are church deacons. Mt. Carmel was chartered in 1967 and is a congregational church. The most recent constitution was effective in 2002. Plaintiff–Appellant, Jack Smith, is one of the committee members listed on the 2002 constitution.

{¶ 5} Article VI, Section I of the Mt. Carmel constitution pertains to church government and provides that the church will have certain “corporate officers,” including the pastor as president. Other officers include a treasurer, a church clerk, and a financial secretary. Motion of Defendants to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, Doc. # 49, Ex. G, pp. 5–6. In addition, the constitution provides that the officers of the church shall be the pastor, deacons, and trustees. Id. at p. 6. The deacons are “responsible for administering to the temporal, physical and benevolent concerns of the church.” Id. at p. 8. The board of trustees, in contrast, is charged with representing the church in legal and corporate matters, and with exercising supervision “over all matters relating to the operation and maintenance of the church and its properties.” Id.

{¶ 6} Article VII, Section 1 of the constitution provides that an annual church conference will be held each year in November, to discuss and vote on the church calendar, election of officers, budget and financial reports, ministry reports, and member suggestions or recommendations. Semi-annual meetings must also be held yearly each June, for purposes of discussingand voting on church business, delinquent members, and projects. Id. at p. 12.

{¶ 7} In addition, special meetings may be called at the request of no less than 25 members or by the pastor and deacons. Concurrent with the request for a special meeting, the items to be considered are to be set forth concurrently by those calling the meeting. Notice of the meeting and the items to be considered are also to be given to the congregation. Id. The constitution further requires that a quorum of two-thirds of the eligible voting members must be present to vote on matters, and that majority-rule applies to carry a vote. Id. at Article VII, Section 3(B), p. 13.

{¶ 8} Mt. Carmel's constitution provides the following method for involuntarily terminating a pastor:

A. When there is continual dissension or confusion originated by the Pastor, the Chairman of Deacons shall have a conference with the Pastor and state the conditions under which he came to serve this church. (Articles II–V). Any of the following, but not limited to, may be a reason to question his call, ability or integrity to serve for Mount Carmel Missionary Baptist Church:

1. Breach of faith.

2. Defy the Covenant.

3. Immoral conduct.

4. Violate the Constitution, Bylaws or any other policy endorsed by our congregation.

B. The charge can be made to the Chairman of Deacons or by any member in good standing (Article 4, Section 6). All reasonable attempts within a ninety-day period (90) shall be made to resolve the grievance.

C. If the grievance is not resolved, the Chairman of Deacon[s] or a member (Article 7, Section 1D.) may initiate the call for a meeting of the congregation to consider termination of the Pastor.

D. If the recommendation for termination is approved as stated under the rules of bare majority shall be required to dismiss a Pastor. (Article 6, Section D). Motion of Defendants to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, Doc. # 49, Ex. G, pp. 13–14.

{¶ 9} Finally, the constitution provides a procedure for member grievances, which begins by the member's submission of a statement of the grievance to the chairman of the deacons. The chairman then discusses the matter with the pastor to decide if an ad hoc committee shall be formed to review the allegations. If a member is dissatisfied with the decision of the ad hoc committee, he or she may request a hearing where the member may be accompanied by others who are supportive. Both supporters and opposition are to be allowed to speak. The pastor then issues a final and binding decision within 30 days. Id. at Article V, Section 6(C), p. 5.

{¶ 10} With respect to the background of the church, we note that Pastor Chestain came to Mt. Carmel in 1975 and retired a few years prior to 2003, when Defendant–Appellee, Chad White, was hired as the new pastor. Because Chestain did not have a retirement plan, the congregation established a $120,000 annuity for Chestain that would pay retirement benefits. At such time as Chestain died, half the remaining annuity was to be paid to his wife, and the rest was to be returned to Mt. Carmel. In order to avoid a similar problem in the future, Mt. Carmel established another pastor's retirement annuity after White was hired. The annuity was not in White's name, but was in the name of Mt. Carmel.

{¶ 11} After White was hired, members of the congregation learned that things on his resume were not truthful. For example,White said he had finished divinity school, but he had not. The church gave White money to finish school, but White never showed the church any record indicating that he had finished. After the property used to house pastors (the manse) was sold in 2007, members questioned where the proceeds had gone. The testimony indicated that this money had apparently been “hidden” by the chairman of the finance committee because the pastor was spending so much money.

{¶ 12} Although not specifically codified in the bylaws or constitution, the policy at Mt. Carmel for many years was that any expenditure over $4,000 had to be approved by the congregation. Furthermore, initial decisions on financial and other matters were made by the deacons and trustees. By 2009, White had essentially bypassed the normal decision-making process in the church, and financial decisions were being made by a small group of people. Around this time, approximately $10,000 was raised for a Haitian relief fund. White allegedly personally delivered the money to Haiti, but no receipts were ever provided for the transaction. In addition, $5,279 was spent on the installation of windows at White's personal residence without prior authorization from the congregation.

{¶ 132032564548;0005;;ES;OHCNART7S3P13;1000279;} In 2010, White asked the deacons and trustees to co-sign for a new car. The car apparently needed about $3,000 in repairs, and White said he would rather trade it in than have it fixed. White did not tell the trustees and deacons that the car was being repossessed. The deacons and trustees objected to the request, and the matter was supposed to be presented to the congregation the following day. However, two defendants, Cora Franklin and Willie Fowler, removed approximately $45,000 from the retirement annuity account. Franklin and Fowler were aligned with White and were two of only four people who were allowed to sign checks on behalf of the church. Franklin had personally advanced White money for the repairs and to bring his car payments current. After Fowler obtained the retirement check, it was cashed and Franklin was reimbursed. The rest of the money was then given to White. The deacons and trustees were not informed about what had happened until later.

{¶ 14} In June 2010, the church was supposed to have a congregational meeting, but the meeting was cancelled. At least 25 members of the church then called for a special meeting to discuss various matters, including the decisions on spending money, the windows, and a church credit card that White had allegedly “maxed out.” The letter requesting a special meeting outlined in detail the matters that the members wished to discuss. The dissenting members wanted a meeting with James Refour, the chairman of the deacons, instead of White, but Refour refused. After receiving the request for a special meeting from Smith's lawyer, Refour and another deacon sent Smith a letter on behalf of the church, instituting disciplinary proceedings against him for seeking legal advice.

{¶ 15} A special meeting was held in October 2010, and was moderated by another pastor, Reverend Byrd....