Kennedy v. Gray
248 Kan. 486, 1991 Kan. LEXIS 61, 807 P.2d 670 (1991)
Rule of Law:
A civil court may inquire into the procedural regularity of a congregational church's expulsion of members where property or civil rights are involved, particularly to ensure the church adhered to its own established procedures or, in their absence, to fundamental principles of democratic governance such as notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Facts:
- Pleasant Green Baptist Church was founded in 1914 by several families who moved to Kansas from Mississippi.
- Twelve plaintiffs, including Lillian Harrington (a founding member) and others with decades of membership, were long-time members of Pleasant Green Baptist Church and served in various capacities such as deacons, church clerk, and Sunday school teachers.
- The eight defendants included the Church pastor, David L. Gray, along with other leaders like the chairman of the deacon board and the chairman of the trustee board, who controlled church assets.
- Plaintiffs attempted to gain access to information regarding the Church’s financial affairs and the use of Church assets and property.
- On July 30, 1989, the first Sunday after the plaintiffs filed suit for an accounting, defendants alleged the plaintiffs were expelled from the Church at a church meeting.
- On January 14, 1990, after a regular church service, Pastor Gray proposed expelling the plaintiffs because filing suit against the Church was deemed “anti-Bible,” and the motion passed.
- Plaintiffs were not given prior notice of the January 14, 1990 expulsion or an opportunity to be heard, despite affidavits from plaintiffs and a pastor from another Baptist church indicating that Baptist churches generally require such procedures.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs filed a class action suit on behalf of all members of Pleasant Green Baptist Church in trial court for an accounting of church financial affairs and for the appointment of a temporary receiver.
- Plaintiffs attempted to obtain financial information from defendants through interrogatories, requests for admissions, and requests for production of documents.
- Defendants filed a first motion for summary judgment in October 1989, alleging plaintiffs were expelled from the church on July 30, 1989.
- On January 5, 1990, the trial court denied defendants’ first motion for summary judgment, stating there were controverted material issues of fact regarding any expulsion hearing.
- Defendants filed a second motion for summary judgment, alleging plaintiffs were expelled on January 14, 1990.
- Plaintiffs served additional discovery requests to determine if church rules existed regarding expulsion and membership, and the identities of those persons voting at the alleged expulsion.
- Defendants filed a motion to quash plaintiffs’ second discovery request, arguing that courts lacked jurisdiction to intervene in church matters.
- The trial court required plaintiffs to respond to defendants’ second motion for summary judgment without further discovery.
- The trial court found it uncontroverted that the January 14, 1990 meeting and expulsion had taken place, concluded it had no power to inquire into the procedure used, and granted summary judgment for defendants.
- Plaintiffs appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Section 7 of the Kansas Bill of Rights prohibit a civil court from inquiring into the procedural regularity of a congregational church's expulsion of members when property or civil rights are allegedly involved?
Opinions:
Majority - Abbott, J.
Yes, the trial court erred by holding that the First Amendment and the Kansas Bill of Rights prohibit a court from hearing this case, because civil courts may inquire into the procedural regularity of a congregational church's expulsion of members when property or civil rights are at stake. The court reversed the summary judgment, distinguishing congregational churches from hierarchical ones. For hierarchical churches, as discussed in Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, civil courts generally defer to ecclesiastical tribunals on internal matters of doctrine or polity, even if property is involved, if resolving the dispute requires extensive inquiry into religious law. However, for congregational churches, where decisions are made by majority vote and there is typically no internal tribunal or body of ecclesiastical law to invoke, courts can apply “neutral principles of law” to protect members' civil and property rights without entangling themselves in religious doctrine. The court found that the trial court improperly relied on King v. Smith, which concerned disgruntled members attempting to bypass church procedures in a hierarchical context, not questioning procedural rights. Drawing an analogy to voluntary, unincorporated associations (Harris v. Aiken), the court noted that members have equitable property rights in an association's assets, entitling them to rudimentary due process (notice, opportunity to defend) before expulsion. Citing Reid v. Gholson, the court emphasized that in congregational churches, courts can ensure a “fairly-conducted meeting” using neutral principles of law such as reasonable notice, the right to attend and advocate one’s views, and the right to an honest count of the votes. Plaintiffs presented affidavits suggesting the existence of church law or usage requiring notice and an opportunity to be heard, creating a disputed material fact. Therefore, the trial court erred in failing to determine whether such church law or usage existed, and in quashing discovery on these matters.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the scope of judicial intervention in internal church disputes, particularly for congregational churches. It limits the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, asserting that courts can apply neutral principles of law to protect members' civil and property rights in congregational settings, ensuring basic due process without delving into religious doctrine. This decision ensures that members of congregational churches are afforded fundamental procedural protections, preventing arbitrary expulsions that could affect their tangible and intangible interests in the church community and its assets. Future cases involving congregational churches will likely face judicial scrutiny regarding procedural fairness, especially when disputes touch upon property rights or established church bylaws, emphasizing the need for churches to maintain transparent and fair procedures.
