Vaughn v. Faith Bible Church of Sudlersville
| Decision Date | 19 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 1258, Sept. Term, 2019,1258, Sept. Term, 2019 |
| Citation | 241 A.3d 1028,248 Md.App. 477 |
| Parties | R. James VAUGHN v. FAITH BIBLE CHURCH OF SUDLERSVILLE, et al. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by: R. Stewart Barroll (Cookerly & Barroll, LLC, on the brief), Chestertown, MD, for Appellant.
Argued by: Christopher F. Drummond of Centreville, MD, for Appellee.
Leahy, Shaw Geter, James R. Eyler (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Shaw Geter, J.
This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment action in the Circuit Court for Queen Anne's County. Following a trial, the court entered a memorandum opinion and judgment, finding and declaring that appellee, Faith Bible Church of Sudlersville, et al .,1 acted within the scope of its corporate and statutory authority when it terminated the tenure of appellant, R. James Vaughn, as pastor of Shore Haven Baptist Church.
Appellant timely appealed and presents the following questions for our review:
For reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
Preliminarily, we note that appellant's Question II, regarding membership of the church, was not raised in the court below. Under Maryland Rule 8-131(a), "[o]rdinarily, the appellate court will not decide any other issue unless it plainly appears by the record to have been raised in or decided by the trial court, but the Court may decide such an issue if necessary or desirable to guide the trial court or to avoid the expense and delay of another appeal." The "twin goals" of Rule 8-131(a) are: "(1) whether the exercise of its discretion will work unfair prejudice to either of the parties," and "(2) whether the exercise of its discretion will promote the orderly administration of justice." Cave v. Elliott , 190 Md. App. 65, 83, 988 A.2d 1 (2010) (quoting Jones v. State , 379 Md. 704, 713–15, 843 A.2d 778 (2004) ) (internal quotation marks omitted). The threshold inquiry for unfair prejudice is whether the issue is purely a legal question and "does not depend on the presentation of additional evidence." Cave v. Elliott , 190 Md. App. at 84, 988 A.2d 1 (quoting Gen. Motors Corp. v. Seay , 388 Md. 341, 364, 879 A.2d 1049 (2005) ). The second inquiry is "whether our review will promote the orderly administration of justice." Id.
Here, the record reflects that no evidence was presented on this issue, arguments were not heard, and the trial court did not make a ruling. Any review by this Court, therefore, would be advisory, unfairly prejudicial, and would not promote the orderly administration of justice where first level fact finding is reserved for the trial courts. We, therefore, decline to exercise our discretion.
In the summer of 2016, John M. Stoltzfus began discussions with Pastor Michael Creed of Independent Baptist Church (IBC) regarding his desire to found a local Baptist church. During their negotiations, it was agreed that Creed's son-in-law, appellant, would serve as pastor of the new church. At a meeting in October 2016, Creed, Stoltzfus, and three additional parties signed articles of incorporation.
On November 15, 2016, the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation accepted Articles of Incorporation for Shore Haven Baptist Church of Sudlersville, Maryland from appellee,2 filed under the Maryland Religious Corporations Law, see Md. Code Ann., Corps. & Ass'ns § 5-304.3 The first section of the Shore Haven Articles of Incorporation provides that five signatories: Pastor Creed; Patrick Lee Creed, Sr.; Jon J. Rediger; Stoltzfus; and Jonathan Stoltzfus, Stoltzfus's son, have been:
elected by the members of the congregation of Shore Haven Baptist Church of Sudlersville, Maryland to act as trustees in the name and on behalf of said congregation do hereby associate ourselves as incorporators with the intention of forming a religious corporation under the general laws of Maryland
The third section of the Shore Haven Articles of Incorporation defines the corporation's purpose:4
The Corporation is organized as a church exclusively for religious, charitable, and educational purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (), including for such purposes, but not limited to, promoting the cause of Christ; advancing the kingdom of God; winning the unsaved; reaching the unchurched; encouraging the development of all members and others in Christian living; and engaging in any other activity that is in the furtherance of section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt purposes.
On November 27, 2016, Independent Baptist Church held an ordination and sending service for appellant and "planted" Shore Haven Baptist Church of Sudlersville, Maryland as an IBC mission church. On that same day, IBC members unanimously voted to install its Constitution as the constitution for Shore Haven. The Constitution made no mention of appointing or dismissing clergy but did provide that the officers of the church had the authority to conduct all of the business affairs of the church.
In late 2018, early 2019, Shore Haven trustees began discussing removal of appellant as pastor of Shore Haven, due to his conduct.5 On March 3, 2019, the Board of Trustees convened, with all seven elected board members and appellant, a trustee by virtue of his position as pastor,6 in attendance. Five elected board members voted to remove appellant, and two trustees and appellant voted in opposition. Following the meeting, appellant was issued a letter instructing him to remain away from Shore Haven Church and to vacate the residence on Shore Haven's property on or before April 5, 2019.7
Appellee filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Ancillary Injunctive Relief on March 22, 2019. Appellant filed an Answer, a Third-Party Complaint and on April 9, 2019, a Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief. A hearing was held by the court on May 28, 2019, and the motion for injunctive relief was denied. Following a trial on August 1, 2019, the court issued its memorandum opinion and order and declaratory judgment on August 16, 2019, finding that the Shore Haven Board of Trustees acted within the scope of its corporate and statutory authority when it voted to end appellee's tenure as pastor. Appellant's third-party complaint was dismissed.
Appellate courts "apply a non-deferential standard in our consideration of whether the trial court's declaratory judgment was correct as a matter of law." Long Green Valley Ass'n v. Bellevale Farms, Inc. , 432 Md. 292, 311, 68 A.3d 843 (2013) (citing Atkinson v. Anne Arundel C'nty , 428 Md. 723, 741, 53 A.3d 1184 (2012) ). When a circuit court conducts a bench trial and enters a declaratory judgment:
an appellate court will review the case on both the law and the evidence. It will not set aside the judgment of the trial court on the evidence unless clearly erroneous, and will give due regard to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.
Maryland Rule 8-131(c). The trial court's evaluation of the evidence is reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard. Falls Rd. Cmty. Ass'n, Inc. v. Baltimore Cty. , 437 Md. 115, 135, 85 A.3d 185 (2014). "[A] legal interpretation ... is reviewed without according the circuit court any special deference." Id. Questions involving statutory interpretation are legal issues which we review de novo.
Damon v. Robles , 245 Md. App. 233, 243, 226 A.3d 410 (2020) (citing Harvey v. Marshall , 389 Md. 243, 257, 884 A.2d 1171 (2005) ).
Under the First Amendment to the Constitution, applicable to the States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." U.S. Const. Amend. I. "The Supreme Court has held that both the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment prohibit judicial review of religious questions," Lang v. Levi , 198 Md. App. 154, 169, 16 A.3d 980 (2011) (citations omitted), lest the courts stumble into a "theological thicket." Mt. Olive African Methodist Episcopal Church of Fruitland, Inc. v. Bd. of Incorporators of African Methodist Episcopal Church Inc. , 348 Md. 299, 309, 703 A.2d 194 (1997) (). Our Court has further explained, "[t]he First Amendment does not ‘proscrib[e] all inquiry by a court of church disputes, but only those dealing with questions of discipline, or of faith, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law.’ " Nouri v. Dadgar , 245 Md. App. 324, 345, 226 A.3d 797 (2020) (citing Mt. Olive , 348 Md. 299, 311, 703 A.2d 194 (1997) (quoting Calvary Presbyterian Church of Balt. City v. Presbytery of Balt. of United Presbyterian Church in U.S. , 39 Md. App. 405, 417, 386 A.2d 357 (1978) ) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
In Maryland, courts resolve religious organizations’ secular disputes involving property interests or requiring an interpretation of corporate charters or bylaws, through the application of neutral principles of law. El Bey v. Moorish Sci. Temple of Am., Inc ., 362 Md. 339, 351, 765 A.2d 132 (2001) (citing Mt. Olive , 348 Md. at 310, 703 A.2d 194 ; American Union of Baptists, Inc. v. Trustees of the Particular Primitive Baptist Church , 335 Md. 564, 575–76, 644 A.2d 1063 (1994) ). "In a property dispute—the context in which the ‘neutral principles of law’ doctrine was first...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Donegal Assocs., LLC v. Christie-Scott, LLC
-
Calvary Temple of Balt., Inc. v. Anne Arundel Cnty., 1574
...as religious corporations and thus, the trustees, not the congregation, constitute the corporation." Vaughn v. Faith Bible Church of Sudlersville, 248 Md. App. 477, 487 (2020). In Maryland, "a religious corporation's board [of directors][] has the power to manage '[a]ll business and affairs......
-
Christ Truth Ministries, Inc. v. Mountain of Fire & Miracles Ministries
...an interpretation of corporate charters or bylaws, through the application of neutral principles of law." Vaughn v. Faith Bible Church ofSudlersville, 248 Md. App. 477, 486 (2020). Courts turn to principles of trust and property law. Id. The circuit court first concluded that the dispute wa......