Posted on 08/04/2016 4:10:51 PM PDT by Gamecock
A judge has ruled that a Mississippi church – not the Presbyterian Church (USA) – owns its property.
In First Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) of Starkville Mississippi vs. Presbytery of St. Andrew, the Presbyterian Church (USA) Inc., the Honorable H.J. Davidson Jr., granted the church’s motion for summary judgment “affirming its right to hold title to its property without interference of claim from the PCUSA.”
FPC-Starkville filed a lawsuit in early 2015 with the Chancery Court of Oktibbeha County in Miss., asking for a declaratory judgment “recognizing that FPC Starkville alone is the absolute, full, exclusive, fee simple owner of all real or personal property that is owned by FPC Starkville.”
Further, it asked the court to declare that neither the presbytery, nor the PCUSA, had “no right to or interest in any of the real or personal property so owned by FPC Starkville.”
The Order
“Simply put,” Davidson wrote in his July 27 order the court is being asked “who is entitled to or controls the real property occupied by FPC?”
Davidson was very clear that “The underlying reason for the schism is not the issue before this court, nor should it be. The issue is the relationship between the local church (FPC) and the parent church (PCUSA) and whether such relationship gives rise to a trust property interest in PCUSA to the real and personal property located in Oktibbeha County, title to which is held of record by FPC.”
In dispute was seven parcels of land in Oktibbeha County that were acquired over a period of 160 years of which “FPC obtained the deeds of conveyance and paid all consideration for the title to the various properties. There are not trust provisions in any deed that the court can ascertain,” he said.
“It is undisputed that the deeds to all the property at issue have no trust provision,” wrote Davidson. “Regardless of the claim of trust, a strict reading of the recorded deeds reveal no trust provision in any other party as trustee, not is there a reverter clause contain in any of the instruments.”
Davidson said there was no “traditional express trust … nor any legally enforceable and separate traditional trust instrument that would operate to vest a beneficial interest in and over the legally titled property of FPC to PCUSA.”
He also declared that there was no “constructive trust as implied by law based on the facts as agreed upon by the parties.”
In his order, Davidson referred to an affidavit submitted by the church “of Caroline Laurie Griffith, who represents herself as an officer of the PCUSA with authority to represent PCUSA. The affiant states that PCUSA has no ownership interest in and no right to control or maintain the property of FPC and further disclaims any and all interest in the property of FPC. Obviously the corresponding question is one of the authority of his agent and the representation she has made. It would seem the head entity takes this position, then any subordinate entity as a member of that denomination could not assert any contrary position.”
Davidson wrote that the “creation of trusts and intent must be clear and convincing. To uphold the argument of PCUSA would be contrary to that standard, unreasonably deprive FPC of its property with just compensation, violate its constitutional right of the free ownership of property and be unjust and inequitable. For these reasons, the Court grants FPC’s motion for Summary Judgment as well as a permanent injunction, affirming its right to hold title to its property without interference or claim from PCUSA.”
The 506-member church was represented by Lloyd J. Lunceford and Ryan K. French of the Taylor Porter law firm in Baton Rouge, LA and by Dolton W. McAlpine of the McAlpine firm in Starkville, MS.
**In dispute was seven parcels of land in Oktibbeha County that were acquired over a period of 160 years of which “FPC obtained the deeds of conveyance and paid all consideration for the title to the various properties. There are not trust provisions in any deed that the court can ascertain,” he said.**
Not an attorney, but this seems to have limited applicability for other churches trying to leave the PC(USA)
This is a rare case. PCUSA usually wins. The cases are pure punishment and revenge for pulling out of the denomination. Not very Christian.
If the PC(USA) didn’t have that stranglehold on churches most of them would have been long gone.
Good deal. My church broke off from PCUSA about 15 years ago because of their liberal tendencies and had a terrible time of it. Finally we were allowed to become a community church as long as we never used the Presbyterian name.
Doesn’t the SBC have the same stranglehold on Southern Baptist churches?
While it may have not been the reason for this split, I guessing the Gaystapo will not be pleased no matter what the case.
This same issue went before the supreme court in 1981 with Community Church of Palm Springs vs. PCUSA. The church won.
CCofPS redux ping
Not sure, but I think not. The Methodists do, I do believe.
The PCUSA is run by a bunch of lesbians and they’re not the least bit Christian.
https://www.pcusa.org/site_media/media/uploads/planningcalendar/pdfs/general_assembly_structure.pdf
Google these women and see what you get.
No, the lack of any central governing authority is an historic baptist distinctive. By definition baptist churches are independent and their finances and property are controlled by the local congregation.
How do the sparsely attended ones pay the bills? There’s a Presbyterian church I used to belong to.....Donations did not cover expenses. They had to be borrowing against the building.
SBC churches are normally locally owned by the congregation. I’ve never heard of one being owned by the SBC although I suppose it’s possible. A church could be kicked out of the SBC (which has happened) but all they lose is their affiliation, not their building.
Thanks for the ping. I tagged it with the ‘churchproperty’ keyword I used on the old threads. Haven’t had much activity on this in a number of years.
And in honor and memory of our much missed Anglican brother, sionnsar.
Results have varied by states. Generally, the local church will win if the states use neutral principles of law, and the denomination will win if the state uses ecclesiastical deference.
SBC has been a voluntary alliance of local churches for as long as I have been involved (about 15 years). The SBC doesn’t run or own the property of any of the churches, as far as I know. They definitely did not have any claim on the three SBC churches I have attended, and I haven’t heard any inkling that this is a change in the way they have always done things.
You downsize. Sometimes the pastor and his wife have jobs and take no salary from the church.
Usually the pastor is the only one who gets a salary so that means that you have no money going out except for mortgage (or rent) and utilities. Any work that needs done is done on a volunteer basis.
Usually such churches do not remain sparsely attended for long. When you have a pastor who is committed the church tends to grow.
My parent's first church was in a rented union hall. Mom and Dad would have to arrive an hour before service to clean and set up. Dad worked for GM and my mom worked at the hospital. The church is still there and running around 500.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.