From the Heart Church Ministries, Inc. v. African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church

BELL, C.J. The issue presented in this case involves the ownership of church property after a local church, incorporated under the Maryland Religious Corporations Law, Md.Code (1957, 1999 Replacement Volume) Title 5, Subtitle 3 of the Corporations and Associations Article, 1 but affiliated with a religious denomination, terminates that affiliation. The Circuit Court for Prince George’s County determined that the church property ¹⁵⁸ belonged to the religious denomination. We issued the writ of certiorari to review the issue. We shall reverse.

I. A. From The Heart Church Ministries, Inc., one of the appellants (“From The Heart”), was organized in Marlow Heights, Maryland in 1981, as an affiliate of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, one of the appellees 2 (“A.M.E. Zion”). It was organized by Reverend Doctor John A. Cherry, the other appellant, its pastor, to whom A.M.E. Zion had given a Pastor’s Certifícate of Appointment and whom it had reappointed to that position for every term thereafter until the withdrawal, and the church’s 24 members. On May 2, 1983, trustees, who had been elected by the congregation a year earlier, formally incorporated the church under the Maryland Religious Corporations Law, see § 5-304, 3 as Full Gospel ¹⁵⁹ A.M.E. Zion Church, Inc. 4 Its purpose, as stated in the Articles of Incorporation (“charter”), 5 was: “To conduct a church for Christian religious purposes and to perform all necessary and allowable activities in connection therewith or incidental thereto, and to engage in any other lawful activity in accordance with the Disciplines of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church. “To do anything permitted by Subtitle 3 of Title 5 of the Corporations and Associations Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland, the Religious Corporations law.[ 6 ]” ¹⁶⁰ Shortly after its incorporation, Full Gospel, on May 13, 1983, purchased “for use in its growing ministry” property located at 5311 St. Barnabas Road in Oxen Hill, Maryland. The deed to that property listed as owner Full Gospel A.M.E. Zion Church, Inc., a Maryland Religious Corporation.

Full Gospel subsequently acquired additional, adjacent property, which it also took in its name alone, and, between 1988 and 1999, other real and personal properties, which were similarly titled. None of the deeds to the real properties, nor the documents reflecting ownership of any of the personal property, moreover, contained a clause creating a trust in favor of, or providing for reversion to, A.M.E. Zion, which did not make any direct financial contribution to the purchase of any of the property. In 1991, Full Gospel’s Board of Trustees adopted church By-laws and amended its Articles of Incorporation. 7 The By ¹⁶¹ laws broadened Full Gospel’s purpose, stating that it “is to conduct a church for Christian religious activities,” as contrasted with the requirement to act “in accordance with the Discipline of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church.” Pursuant to the By-laws, moreover, the trustees were vested with full control of Full Gospel’s church property. The Bylaws provided that, in furtherance of the church’s purpose: “[T]he Corporation may receive property by gift, devise or bequest, invest and reinvest the same and apply the income and principal thereof, as the Board of Trustees may from time to time determine, either directly or through contributions through any charitable organization or organizations, exclusively for religious, charitable, and educational purposes, and engage in any lawful act or activity for which corporations may be organized under the general laws of the State of Maryland. “In furtherance of its corporate purposes, the Corporation shall have all the general powers enumerated in Section 2-103 of the Maryland General Corporation Law as now in effect or as may hereafter be amended.” The amendment of the Articles of Incorporation deleted all reference to the A.M.E. Zion denomination.

In addition to the same broad statement of purpose as in the By-laws, the amended Articles addressed specifically the disposition of church property on the dissolution of the corporation. As amended, the Articles provided: ¹⁶² “In the event of dissolution or final liquidation of the Corporation, all remaining assets of the Corporation [the church] shall ... be distributed to such organization or organizations organized and operated exclusively for religious, or charitable, or educational purposes as shall at the time qualify as an exempt organization or organizations ... as the Board of Trustees shall determine.” Full Gospel amended its Articles of Incorporation again on June 15,1998. This amendment adopted the church’s present name, From The Heart Ministries, Inc., and provided, consistent with its By-laws, that the church would have all of the general powers of a Maryland corporation, as enumerated in § 2-103 of the Corporations & Associations. Article. 8 The ¹⁶³ 1998 charter amendment, like the predecessor 1991 amendment did with respect to Full Gospel, also expressly authorized From The Heart to distribute its assets and property, upon dissolution or final liquidation, to such charitable organizations as its Board of Trustees should determine.

Moreover, the 1998 amendment gave the Board of Trustees full power to act on behalf of the church and to conduct any business matters of the church, to adopt By-laws for the church, and to amend, or promulgate new, Articles of Incorporation for the church. B. The A.M.E. Zion Church, 9 founded in 1898, is a religious denomination, international in scope, made up of affiliated churches. It’s organizational structure is hierarchical, although ¹⁶⁴ the church itself characterizes it as “connectional.” Under this structure, the affiliated local churches report to one of twelve bishops, who in turn report, quadrennially, every four years, to the General Conference, the governing body of A.M.E. Zion. Comprised of clergy and lay delegates from around the world, the responsibilities of the General Conference include revising the Book of Discipline of the African Methodist Episcopalian Zion Church, A.M.E. Zion’s governing policies.

Between sessions of the General Conference, A.M.E. Zion is governed by its bishops, who also oversee the various Annual Conferences, which meet yearly to address concerns of the clergy and laity located within the various regions into which the administration of the church is divided. The rules and regulations of the A.M.E. Zion denomination are codified, and published, in its Book of Discipline of the African Methodist Episcopalian Zion Church. The “Book of Discipline” is published quadrennially. Because they were applicable either when property was purchased or while it was being held prior to From the Heart’s disaffiliation, several editions of the Book of Discipline, specifically those dating from 1980 through 1996, are relevant to the resolution of the case sub judice.

Given that the applicable provisions of each of those editions are identical and both parties rely only on the 1996 edition of the Book of Discipline, however, we likewise shall restrict our consideration to that edition. . The 1996 Book of Discipline addresses, as did the predecessor and successor editions, the requirement that places held or hereafter acquired by a local church, for the purpose of worship or parsonage, be held in trust for A.M.E. Zion denomination. Paragraph 494 provides: “All written instruments of conveyance by which premises are held or hereafter acquired, for use as a place of Divine worship for members of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church or for other church activities, shall contain the following trust clause: ‘In trust, that said premises shall be used, kept, maintained, and disposed of as a place of divine worship for ¹⁶⁵ the use of the ministry and membership of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church in America; subject to the discipline, usage and ministerial appointments of said church as from time to time authorized and declared by the General Conference of said church, and the Annual Conference in whose bounds the said premises are situated. This provision is solely for the benefit of the grantee, and the grantor reserve[s] no right or interest in said premises.’ ” The same requirement is imposed on the deeds for parsonage property by ¶ 495.1.

It provides: “1. All written instruments by which premises are held or hereafter acquired as a parsonage for the use and occupancy of the ministers of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church shall contain [the same trust clause as set out in ¶ 494, creating a trust, solely for the benefit of the grantee, over such parsonage property].” Under ¶ 493, “[i]t is the duty of the Pastor and Presiding Elder to see that our Church Property is deeded according to our Book of Discipline, and duly incorporated in accordance with the laws of the State or the Territory in which it is situated.” The Book of Discipline also provides for the eventuality that the trust clause is, for one reason or another, omitted from a deed. In ¶ 495.2, it states: “2. However, the absence of the trust clause stipulated in ¶ 494 and ¶ 495 in deeds and conveyances previously executed, shall in no way exclude a local church from, or relieve it of, its African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church Connectional responsibilities nor shall it absolve a local congregation or board of trustees of its responsibility to the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, provided that the intent and desire of the founders and/or the later congregations and board of Trustees is shown by any or all of the following indications: (a) The conveyance of the property to the trustees of the local African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church or any of its predecessors; (b) The use of the name, customs, and policy of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church in such a way as to be thus known to the community ¹⁶⁶ as a part of this denomination; (c) The acceptance of the pastorate or ministers appointed by a bishop of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, or employed by the Presiding Elder of the district in which it is located.” In addition, the Book of Discipline contains provisions that do not directly require conveyance of church property in trust, but nevertheless have been argued to be relevant to the determination of the ownership of church property upon withdrawal of a local church from the A.M.E. Zion church.

Under ¶ 495.3, it is required that property be sold “in conformity with the Discipline.” Paragraph 498.1 is to similar effect, providing: “1. The Trustees shall not in any case whatsoever dispose of Church Property by sale or otherwise without the consent of the majority of the Members in Full Connection, expressed by vote in a meeting called for that purpose, of which due notice has been given. Provided, however, that no congregation, pastor, nor Trustee Board or agent of the congregation shall mortgage or sell any property of the A.M.E. Zion Church without confirmation of the Quarterly Conference and written consent of the Bishop of the District or the Annual Conference.” Finally, ¶ 498.2, applicable to the situation where there is no pastor because there is no local congregation, provides: “2. It is further provided that where there is a Church or circuit, or a Station, without a Pastor, because the membership has withdrawn and scattered and there is no Congregation, and no need for an appointment of a Preacher to this place, that the Conference in which the Church is located may pass a resolution declaring the Church or Circuit, or Station discontinued or abandoned and ordering the sale of the property, and approved by the Bishop; the Bishop of the District shall give a deed to the purchaser for the same., and the proceeds from the sale of said property turned over to the Annual Conference for its disposition.” ¹⁶⁷ C. Upon being notified by From The Heart that it intended to withdraw from the A.M.E. Zion denomination, 10 the appellee requested From The Heart to turn over, and transfer ownership of, the real and personal church property it had amassed, to it.

From The Heart declined to do so and, instead, filed, in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, an action, 11 seeking, among other things, a declaratory judgment that it was the sole and rightful owner of the real and personal property it had acquired, to quiet title to that real and personal property and preliminary injunctive relief. 12 A.M.E. Zion answered and filed a counterclaim, in which, among other relief, it sought its own declaratory judgment with respect to property ownership. 13 Moving to intervene, appellees Phila ¹⁶⁸ delphia-Baltimore Annual Conference and the newly incorporated Full Gospel A.M.E. Zion Church, filed a separate action against the appellants, also seeking, among other relief, declaratory judgment with respect to property ownership, which it moved to consolidate with the pending actions. A.M.E. Zion later filed a motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment and quiet title counts of From the Heart’s complaint and the appellants moved to dismiss both A.M.E. Zion’s counterclaim and the separate action. The Circuit Court granted the motion to intervene and consolidated the actions. Then, pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-322(c), 14 it treated the motions to dismiss as motions for summary judgment. 15 The court concluded that there was no genuine dispute as to any material fact with regard to the following: “[Djuring its affiliation with the A.M.E. Zion Church, (From the Heart) accepted the pastors appointed by the bishops of the A.M.E. Zion Church ... used the name, customs and polity of the A.M.E. Zion Church in such a way as to be known in the community as a part of the A.M.E. Zion ¹⁶⁹ denomination . .. [and,] at all material times, [the Discipline] included provisions requiring all local church property to be held in trust for the A.M.E. Zion Church.” Accordingly, it granted summary judgment: in favor of A.M.E. Zion, African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church Mid-Atlantic II Episcopal District and Bishop Milton A. Williams, Sr., as to the declaratory judgment and quiet title counts of the appellants’ complaint; 16 in favor of A.M.E. Zion, as to the declaratory judgment, ejectment and detinue counts of its Answer and Counterclaims; and in favor of the Philadelphia-Baltimore Annual Conference and the newiy incorporated Full Gospel A.M.E. Zion Church, as to the ejectment and misappropriation/wrongful conversion counts of their separate action.

In addition, the court declared “that, under the neutral principles of property law, all property acquired by From the Heart Church Ministries, Inc. including all property acquired under the name Full Gospel A.M.E. Zion Church, prior to July 8, 1999, is subject to a trust in favor of the A.M.E. Zion Church, as expressed in The Book of Discipline of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Chivrch, which trust has the legal effect of requiring the property to stay within the A.M.E. Zion denomination and preventing From the Heart Church Ministries, Inc., from retaining the property upon its decision to end its affiliation with the A.M.E. Zion Church.” While the appellant’s appeal to the Court of Special Appeals was pending in that court, we issued the Writ of Certiorari, on our own motion, to address the important issue of whether, when a local church withdraws from a religious denomination, the property belongs to the local church or to the denomination. From the Heart v. African Methodist, 358 Md. 380 , 749 A.2d 171 (2000). As already indicated, we shall reverse. ¹⁷⁰ II. In this Court, From the Heart argues that summary judgment in favor of A.M.E. Zion was inappropriate.

It asserts that A.M.E. Zion, an hierarchical denomination, failed to avail itself of any one of the three methods this Court has held is available to such denominations to maintain control of local church property when the local church withdraws from the affiliation. 17 In particular, From the Heart points out that there is no provision calling for the reversion of the property amassed by the local church in the deeds of the property or A.M.E. Zion’s Book of Discipline and there is no Maryland statute that so provides for the benefit of the A.M.E. Zion denomination, as there is with regard to the Methodist denomination, for example. See §§ 5-321-828 of the Corporations and Associations Article. 18 More specifically, it notes that it ¹⁷¹ did not hold its property in trust for A.M.E. Zion and that A.M.E. Zion was aware of that fact, thus consenting to it. From the Heart argues, in any event, that, rather than establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, an intent to create a trust, the evidence proved the opposite, that From the Heart had no intention to hold its property in trust for A.M.E. Zion. 19 From the Heart further maintains that, even if Eldership method two were implicated, and a finding in favor of A.M.E. Zion were possible on the merits, a trial, nevertheless would be required. In that regard, it contends that genuine disputes as to material facts exist with respect to the affirmative defenses of consent, waiver and estoppel and that those disputes can only be resolved at trial.

From the Heart also believes that a trial is required with regard to whether From the Heart, in its former existence as Full Gospel, consented to ¹⁷² the property provisions in the Book of Discipline and with regard to whether, because its interest was not expressed in the proper form, of which A.M.E. Zion was aware, A.M.E. Zion waived its rights to the property or is estopped to rely on the property provisions of the Book of Discipline. Moreover, the appellant, From the Heart, contends that there is a factual dispute concerning whether A.M.E. Zion dealt with From the Heart in an hierarchical manner, noting the evidence that A.M.E. Zion, as reflected in Bishop Foggie’s Report to the 1988 Quadrennial Conference, maintained an unconventional relationship with From the Heart, with respect to, among other matters, the manner in which it held its property. 20 The appellees, of course, see the issue differently. They characterize the principle issue in this case as whether local church property impressed with a trust in favor of the religious denomination with which the local church has affiliated must remain with the denomination when the majority of the membership, of the local church withdraws from the denomination. The answer required by application of the neutral principles approach is, yes, they submit, citing and quoting Brown v. Scott, 138 Md. 237, 242 , 113 A. 727, 730 (1921) (“any number of the members of a church, whether small or great, have the power to join whatever church they may please, however it may be in disregard of the rules and constitution of the church to which they may have formerly belonged, but they cannot by so doing affect the rights of others, nor divert the use of property held in trust for a particular and specified purpose, to another and different purpose or use”).

Under ¹⁷³ that approach, it must be determined if the local church property is held in trust for the use of the parent church, the religious denomination. The appellees dispute that, in order that local church property revert to the religious denomination when the local church withdraws from that denomination, there must be an explicit provision calling for such reversion in the denomination’s constitution or other authoritative source. On the contrary, they submit, all that is required is unconditional trust language like that in the Book of Discipline in this case. Indeed, the appellees argue that a reverter upon withdrawal rule is not a neutral principle of law.

Summary judgment was appropriately granted in the case sub judice based on two facts that the appellants concede, the appellees argue. From the Heart accepted the pastoral appointments each year and it used the A.M.E. Zion name, customs and polity so that it was known in the community as a part of the denomination. The appellees maintain that anyone who joins a religious denomination is bound by all of the rules of that denomination. They assert that From the Heart knew about the trust language and the trust requirement in the A.M.E. Zion Book of Discipline.

Thus, the appellees maintain, its failure to deed the church property correctly or A.M.E. Zion’s failure to enforce the deed requirement does not raise any issue of consent, waiver or estoppel, the terms and structure of the Book of Discipline being so clear and plain that once the conditions set out in ¶ 494 and ¶ 495 are satisfied, i.e. acceptance of pastoral appointments and use of the A.M.E. Zion name, customs and polity, awareness that the church doctrine required church property to be held in trust, a trust exists, even when no trust clause is included in the property deeds. In fact, the appellees argue that the only way to avoid the creation of the trust is to make sure that the conditions are not complied with. They conclude, “having prospered by its affiliation with A.M.E. Zion for nearly 20 years, and having participated in the functioning of the denomination throughout, appellants may not now pretend that Full Gospel was exempt from any of A.M.E. Zion’s rules.” ¹⁷⁴ III. The issue this case presents is not a new one for this Court, albeit it has never before been presented in this precise context.

We most recently addressed it in Mt. Olive African Methodist Episcopal Church of Fruitland, Inc. v. Board of Incorporators of African Methodist Episcopal Church Inc., 348 Md. 299 , 703 A.2d 194 (1997). In that case, we framed the question as “whether the trustees and local congregation lost the rights given' them by the deed of the property and confirmed by the Religious Corporation Law and the corporate charter, to own, use and control that property, when the pastor, trustees, officers, and a majority of the congregation of the local church withdrew from ... affiliation [with the denomination], hierarchical in form, with which it had been affiliated for more than one hundred years. Id. at 301 , 703 A.2d at 195 .

In answering the question, “no,” thus reversing the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals, which had reversed the summary judgment entered by the Circuit Court, we set out the appropriate analytical framework: “it is clear that the resolution of church property disputes demand an analysis that involves the review of all relevant documents and circumstances. Unless the deed to the property clearly provides for the holding of the property in trust for the parent church, it is not enough to consider simply the form of the church government, the constitution or other authoritative sources pertinent to the parent church’s claim to the property, consideration must also be given to the Religious Corporations Law, the relations between the parties, and the local church charter. The latter at the very least provides insight into the relations between the parties and may evidence the local church’s consent to the form of government and to be bound by provisions in the parent church’s constitution or other authoritative sources pertaining to the ownership and control of its property.” Id. at 320 , 703 A.2d at 204 . In formulating this analytical framework, the Court began with a review of the Maryland precedents, which resulted in a ¹⁷⁵ confirmation of the principles enunciated in Maryland and Virginia Eldership of Churches of God v. Church of God at Sharpsburg, 249 Md. 650, 663 , 241 A.2d 691, 699 (1968) (Eldership I) and Maryland and Virginia Eldership of Churches of God v. Church of God at Sharpsburg, Inc., 254 Md. 162, 165 , 254 A.2d 162, 165 (1969), aff'd, 396 U.S. 367 , 90 S.Ct. 499 , 24 L.Ed.2d 582 (1970) (Eldership II).

Eldership I started with the proposition that it is clear that incorporation under the General Religious Corporations Law applicable to all religious groups results in the trustees and the local congregation having ownership and control of the property of the local church. 249 Md. at 658 , 241 A.2d at 696 . See, to the same effect, Eldership II, 254 Md. at 174 , 254 A.2d at 169 (“By the nature of the law in regard to the formation of corporations generally, the religious corporation formed under it is controlled by trustees elected by the local membership.”). We concluded that, of the “[a]t least three kinds of internal structure, of ‘polity’ ” — congregational, presbyterial, and episcopal — identified in Eldership I, see 249 Md. at 662 , 241 A.2d at 698 , “Maryland law contemplates a congregational form of church government.” Mt. Olive, 348 Md. at 314 , 703 A.2d at 201 .

The ownership and control of such corporations need not remain perpetually with the trustees, however. Id. at 315 , 703 A.2d at 202 . That point, we noted, is clearly made by the enumeration in Eldership I of three ways an hierarchical denomination may insure its control over local church property, id.; see also 249 Md. at 663 , 241 A.2d at 699 , as well as by the recognition that “the nature, extent, and consequences of an affiliation are ... matters to be determined by the trustees and the congregation, in conjunction with the denomination or parent church with which the local church chooses to affiliate,” ordinarily is a matter of contract. Mt.

Olive, 348 Md. at 316 , 703 A.2d at 202 . See also Eldership I, 249 Md. at 672 , 241 A.2d at 704 ; Eldership II, 254 Md. at 176 , 254 A.2d at 170 . The “polity” or the form of the church government of the particular denomination, though not controlling, is an important consideration when deciding whether there is a contract ¹⁷⁶ which alters the ownership and control of the property, at least when there is no express language bearing on the subject in the deed conveying the property. Mt.

Olive, 348 Md. at 317 , 703 A.2d at 203 , (citing and quoting Eldership I, 249 Md. at 662 , 241 A.2d at 698 ). That the form of church government is not dispositive was illustrated by Eldership I. There, although the General Elder-ship of the Church of God was hierarchal in nature, its constitution did not address the ownership and control of local church property, beyond recommending both that such property be deeded in trust to trustees and the insertion in such deeds of provisions requiring reversion to the appropriate annual eldership upon the church’s becoming extinct or failure to remain doctrinally compatible, the local charter of one of the local churches was explicit in its inclusion of a statement that affiliation with a religious denomination would not affect its control and ownership of its property. Mt. Olive, 348 Md. at 317-18 , 703 A.2d at 203 , (citing Eldership I, 249 Md. at 665-66 , 241 A.2d at 700 ) To the Eldership Court, it was “plain that it was never contemplated that the property of the local churches should be subject to the control of the Eldership.” 254 Md. at 170 , 254 A.2d at 168 .

Babcock Mem. Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery of Baltimore of the United Presbyterian Church, 296 Md. 573 , 464 A.2d 1008 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1027 , 104 S.Ct. 1287 , 79 L.Ed.2d 689 (1984) and Polen v. Cox, 259 Md. 25, 31-32 , 267 A.2d 201, 204-05 (1970), we proffered, “are examples of hierarchal denominations utilizing one of the accepted methods to maintain ownership and control of local church property” and also demonstrate the necessity “that there be provided evidence of the consent of the local church to [the provision on which the denomination’s claim is based],” Mt. Olive, 348 Md. at 318-19 , 703 A.2d at 203-04 , which consent may be express or implied. Id. at 319 , 703 A.2d at 204 .

In Babcock, express consent to a provision in the religious denomination’s constitution prohibiting sale, mortgage or encumbrance of local church property without the consent of the Presbytery was supplied by a provision in the charter of the local church stating that ¹⁷⁷ the local church should “forever remain a Presbyterian Church in accordance with the Standards of the Presbyterian Church of the United States” and a by-law affirming the local church’ affiliation with the United Presbyterian Church of the United States and acknowledging the subordination of the bylaws to the Constitution of the United Presbyterian Church. Id. at 318-19 , 703 A.2d at 203-04 , (citing and quoting Babcock, 296 Md. at 580, 577, 579 , 464 A.2d at 1012, 1011, 1018 ). The minutes of the General Assembly of the parent church which denied “the right of any local church as a whole to withdraw from the General Assembly” provided the basis for parental church control of the local church property in Polen. Mt.

Olive, 348 Md. at 318 , 703 A.2d at 203 ,(quoting Polen, 259 Md. at 34 , 267 A.2d at 206 ). The local church’s consent to that provision “was implied and was inferred from the relationship between the parent church and the local congregation.” Id. at 319, 703 A.2d at 204 ,(citing Polen, 259 Md. at 36 , 267 A.2d at 207 ). With this background, we turned to a consideration of the decision of the intermediate appellate court. As indicated, that court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, but on a ground different from that on which the trial court relied.

The Circuit Court granted summary judgment on two grounds, the absence of trust language in the deeds to the church property and the failure of the applicable Book of Discipline to provide for the reversion of the property in the event of a withdrawal from the denomination. Although agreeing with the Circuit Court that the deeds supported the retention of the church property by the local church and assuming the correctness of its finding with regard to the Book of Discipline, the Court of Special Appeals reached the opposite conclusion, based on a provision in the local church’s certificate of incorporation. 21 ¹⁷⁸ This Court, in rejecting the intermediate appellate court’s rationalization, noted its satisfaction that the trial court was legally correct. 348 Md. at 323 , 703 A.2d at 206 . In making that determination, we reviewed the arguments made to the trial court, concluding that “[t]he major thrust ... was that the A.M.E. Discipline ... mandates a result in its favor.” Id. By confirming the legal correctness of the trial court’s ruling, acknowledging that it responded to the arguments presented, rejecting in the process, the contention that a Book of Discipline containing trust language was applicable, we impliedly rejected the A.M.E. Church’s reliance on church doctrine to the exclusion of the evidence derived from an inspection of the relevant documents along with the applicable Book of Discipline.

Id. at 323-26 , 703 A.2d at 206-07 . What we said with respect to the office of the local church charter is consistent with such a rejection and, therefore, instructive on the issue this case presents: “The charter is, on the one hand, a relevant document which must be considered when there is a question raised as to the adequacy of the proof that the parent church has acted, consistent with its form of church government, to maintain ownership or control over local church property and, therefore, the local congregation’s consent to the parent church’s ¹⁷⁹ hegemony in that regard must be shown. Where, on the other hand, there is no evidence of the parent church having so acted, its constitution and other authoritative documents being silent on the critical issue, the deed to the property lacking any indication of its interest, and there being no legislation to bridge the gap, the relevance of the charter is at best marginal. In that circumstance, where the only evidence is essentially the form of church government, which as we have seen is hardly dispositive, without more, nothing less than the clearest statement of intention that the parent church own and control property deeded to the local church, which also paid for it, will suffice.

The office of the charter, in short, ordinarily, is to provide evidence of the local church’s consent to be bound by the parent church’s polity.” 348 Md. at 326 n. 14, 703 A.2d at 207 n. 14. As in Mt. Olive, the issue is the ownership of the church property acquired by From the Heart during its affiliation with A.M. E. Zion. More specifically, it is whether, because the case was decided on summary judgment, there is in the record evidence, of which there is no genuine dispute, see Maryland Rule 2-501 (a), that the church property was impressed with a trust, express or implied, in favor of A.M.E. Zion, as and when From the Heart acquired it.

This issue must be resolved without determining ecclesiastical questions, Mt. Olive, 348 Md. at 310 , 703 A.2d at 199 , (citing Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) at 729, 20 L.Ed. at 676-77), and by applying “neutral principles of law, developed for use in all property disputes, which can be applied without ‘establishing’ churches to which property is awarded.” Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. at 449, 89 S.Ct. at 606, 21 L.Ed.2d at 665. Stated simply, the neutral principles of law approach “relies exclusively on objective, well-established concepts of trust and property law familiar to lawyers and judges. It thereby promises to free civil courts completely from entanglement in questions of religious doctrine, polity, and practice.” Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 603 , 99 S.Ct. 3020, 3025 , 61 L.Ed.2d 775, 785 (1979) ¹⁸⁰ Jones v. Wolf, supra, concerned a property dispute between the local church and the denomination with which it was affiliated.

Having examined the property deeds, state statutes, local church charter, the denomination’s constitution and Book of Church Order for language of trust in favor of the denomination, and finding none, the Georgia courts held that legal title to the local church property was vested in the local church congregation, concluding that the mere connectional relationship between the local church and the denomination was an insufficient basis upon which to establish property rights in the denomination. The United States Supreme Court approved this “neutral principles of law” approach as an acceptable method of resolving that church property dispute. It cautioned, however, that although the analysis may involve examination of some religious instruments, such as a church constitution, the inquiry must be performed in purely secular terms without relying “on religious precepts in determining whether the document indicates that the parties have intended to create a trust.” Id. at 604 , 99 S.Ct. at 3026 , 61 L.Ed.2d at 785 . Thus, neutral principles of law are principles that are “applicable not only to religious bodies, but to public and private lay organizations and to civil governments as well.” Kennedy v. Gray, 248 Kan. 486 , 807 P.2d 670, 676 (1991).

See West v. Belin, 314 Ark. 40 , 858 S.W.2d 97, 101 (1993)(stating “where the controversy involves issues of ownership in church property, the state has an obvious and legitimate interest in providing a forum in which these disputes can be peacefully resolved, so long as the resolution by the court does not involve consideration of any doctrinal matters....”); Moses v. Diocese of Colorado, 863 P.2d 310, 320 (Colo.1993)(quoting Bishop and Diocese of Colorado v. Mote, 716 P.2d 85, 98 )(Colo.1986)(religious corporations are “ ‘subject to the principles of the common law and the practice and procedure applicable to corporations under the general incorporation laws, so far as the same are pertinent.’ ”); Holmstrom v. Sir, 590 N.W.2d 538, 540 (Iowa 1999) (holding that any approach for settling church disputes must involve no consideration of ¹⁸¹ doctrine); Shirley v. Christian Episcopal Methodist Church, 748 So.2d 672, 675 (Miss.1999) (neutral principles of law envision use of objective concepts of trust and property law in determining property disputes, applied after a secular examination of deeds to the church property, state statutes and existing local and general church constitutions, by-laws, canons, Books of Discipline and the like to determine whether any basis for a trust in favor of the general church exists); Atkins v. Walker, 284 N.C. 306 , 200 S.E.2d 641, 650 (1973) (noting that “these questions must be resolved on the basis of principles of law equally applicable to the use of properties of an unincorporated athletic or social club”); Park Slope Jewish Ctr. v. Congregation B’Nai Jacob, 90 N.Y.2d 517 , 664 N.Y.S.2d 236 , 686 N.E.2d 1330, 1332 (1997)(quoting First Presbyt. Church v. United Presbyt. Church, 62 N.Y.2d 110 , 476 N.Y.S.2d 86 ,