The Episcopal Church In the Diocese of Conn. v. Gauss

• Decision Date: 11 October 2011
• Docket Number: No. 18718.,18718.
• Citation: 28 A.3d 288,302 Conn. 386
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: The EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN the DIOCESE OF CONNECTICUT et al.v.Ronald S. GAUSS et al.

302 Conn. 386

28 A.3d 288

The EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN the DIOCESE OF CONNECTICUT et al.

v.Ronald S. GAUSS et al.

No. 18718.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued Feb. 9, 2011.Decided Oct. 11, 2011.

James H. Howard, with whom was Howard M. Wood III, Manchester, for the appellant (prospective intervenor Bishop Seabury Church).Alan Robert Baker, with whom were Michelle M. Seery, Wethersfield, and, on the brief, David Booth Beers, and Mary E. Kostel, pro hac vice, for the appellees (plaintiffs).ROGERS, C.J., and NORCOTT, PALMER, ZARELLA, McLACHLAN and EVELEIGH, Js.ZARELLA, J.

This is the first of two appeals arising from a property dispute between members of a local parish and the church with which they were affiliated. The plaintiffs, The Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Connecticut (Diocese), the Reverend Canon David Cannon,¹ Bishop Seabury Church ² (Parish), and The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (Episcopal Church),³ brought this action against the defendants, Ronald S. Gauss ⁴ and twelve present or former officers or vestry members of the Parish who hold themselves out as continuing to serve in that capacity,⁵ alleging breach of trust for the wrongful failure to relinquish to the plaintiffs all of the real and personal property of the Parish following a decision by a majority of the voting members of the Parish, including the defendants, to withdraw from the Diocese and to affiliate the Parish with the Convocation of Anglicans of North America (CANA), an ecclesiastical society that is not part of the Episcopal Church or the Diocese. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the disputed property was held in trust for the Episcopal Church and the Diocese and an order enjoining the defendants and all those acting in concert with them or at their direction from their continued use of, or assertion of any rights to, the property. Thereafter, an unincorporated voluntary association describing itself as “Bishop Seabury Church” or, alternatively, as Bishop Seabury Memorial Church or Bishop Seabury Episcopal Church (association), attempted unsuccessfully to intervene in the action to protect its alleged ownership interest in the property. The association now appeals to this court, claiming that the trial court improperly denied its motion to intervene and its request for an evidentiary hearing. The plaintiffs respond that the trial court properly denied the association's motion and request. We agree with the plaintiffs and, accordingly, affirm the decision of the trial court.

The following facts are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. The plaintiffs filed their complaint on May 20, 2008. One of the plaintiffs is “Bishop Seabury Church,” that is, the Parish. On July 11, 2008, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the Parish was not an authorized plaintiff. The defendants argued, inter alia, that the Parish did not have standing because (1) the real Bishop Seabury Church is an entity, or association, separate and distinct from any of the entities or persons identified as plaintiffs in the complaint, (2) the vast majority of its members are not parties to this action, (3) it existed as an independent entity before becoming a parish, (4) it retained its independence after becoming a parish, and (5) it never authorized the present action. In their argument in support of the motion, the defendants similarly contended that the Parish had “co-opt [ed] the identity of Bishop Seabury Church,” which, they claimed, was an independent entity governed by its own bylaws that never had authorized the present action. On February 4, 2009, the trial court determined that the Parish had standing and denied the motion to dismiss.

On April 9, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to strike the complaint, arguing that the plaintiffs had failed to join an indispensable party, namely, “the voluntary association known as Bishop Seabury Church Society, an association of approximately 290 members located [in the town of Groton].” The defendants specifically argued that the complaint included allegations against, and that the plaintiffs sought to wrest control from, a society or congregation composed of lay members in possession and control of the property who were “acting in concert” with the defendants and that, because those members were not parties to the present action, they were not receiving “due process” sufficient to bind them to any future court decree. (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

On June 11, 2009, the trial court denied the motion to strike. The court explained that it had taken the allegations in the complaint as true, as it had done when considering the defendants' motion to dismiss, and that the defendants' claim that there was a “Bishop Seabury Church Society” separate and distinct from the Parish was in conflict with the allegations in the complaint. The court observed that the defendants had pointed to no evidence that any other association had been formed by the alleged 280 members of the Bishop Seabury Church Society, and that the members of this society were not indispensable parties because there was nothing in the record indicating that they had a legal interest in the property or that the court could not resolve all of the disputed matters concerning the property without their participation.

On July 1, 2009, the defendants filed an answer, fifteen special defenses and a counterclaim. In their answer, the defendants denied any “characterization of the property as belonging to an entity other than the entities identified in the deeds....” In their counterclaim directed against the Episcopal Church, the defendants alleged that they were “the vestry of Bishop Seabury Church” and that, “[i]n [their] capacity as members of the [Bishop Seabury] Church Society identified in the deeds attached to the plaintiffs' [c]omplaint, they [did] not believe that the Diocese or [t]he Episcopal Church [could] unilaterally control the real [property] occupied by the [Church] Society....”

That same day, the association, represented by the same attorneys who were representing the defendants in the pending litigation, sought to intervene in the action as of right or, in the alternative, permissively, under General Statutes § 52–107 and Practice Book § 9–18.⁶ The association described itself as a religious association that had existed since the 1870s, consisting of approximately 700 individuals, of whom approximately 280 were voting members, and that it was moving to intervene to “defend its title to the property....” The association specifically alleged that the entity identified by the plaintiffs as “Bishop Seabury Church” was not the entity identified in the deeds to the property but was a fictional entity created for the purpose of participating in the present litigation. The association also alleged that no current party to the litigation had title to the property in its name and that, because the association was the record owner of the property, it was an indispensable party. Furthermore, because the association was in possession and control of the property but was not currently under the court's jurisdiction, the association and its members could not be bound by any court orders connected with the litigation. Claiming that the case, as currently framed, could not resolve any issues involving title, possession or control of the property, the association requested permission to intervene as the entity identified in the deeds to the property so that it could assert a counterclaim for the purpose of quieting title and pursuing damages against the plaintiffs. A resolution that had been adopted the previous day by the elected officers of “Bishop Seabury Church Society” containing similar allegations was attached to the motion as “[e]xhibit A” ⁷ and was authenticated by the affidavit of Kathy Tallardy in her capacity as “[s]ecretary” of “Bishop Seabury Church,” the same Kathy Tallardy named as one of the defendants by the plaintiffs in the action. Also attached to the motion, as “[e]xhibit B,” was a copy of the association's most recent bylaws, dated January 20, 2008, reflecting its decision to become a parish under CANA and its self-described independence.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion to intervene on several grounds, including that the Parish was not a fictional entity created for the purpose of the litigation but had long existed as a subordinate unit of the Episcopal Church and, in that capacity, held title to the disputed property.

At the hearing on the motion, the attorney for the association, James H. Howard, introduced himself as representing the defendants as well as the association. Howard distinguished the defendants from the association by noting that the defendants had not asserted a claim of title because they were not identified individually in the deeds to the property, whereas the association was claiming title to the property as “Bishop Seabury Church,” which was named in the deeds and thus was a necessary party. Howard explained that, because the plaintiffs were seeking possession of the property and there were hundreds of association members, but only thirteen defendants, it was “appropriate to have the people who are actually in possession” be involved in the litigation. In other words, simply issuing an order relating to twelve or thirteen individuals would not resolve the dispute. Howard further argued that the plaintiffs' claim of an implied trust could not be adequately litigated without consideration of the association's claim of record title to the property. He concluded with a request for an evidentiary hearing on the motion to explore these issues more fully. The plaintiffs' attorney responded that there was no dispute regarding title because there was only one entity that held title to the property, namely, the Parish, and that the issue came down to what entity had possession and the right to hold and control...