Vaughn v. Faith Bible Church of Sudlersville

R. James Vaughn v. Faith Bible Church of Sudlersville, et al. No. 1258, Sept. Term 2019 Opinion by Shaw Geter, J. Constitutional Law The First Amendment does not prohibit civil courts from resolving all church disputes, but only those concerning questions of discipline, or of faith, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law. U.S. Const. Amend. 1. Constitutional Law Neutral principles of law, developed for use in all property disputes, can be applied to resolve religious organizations’ secular disputes requiring an interpretation of corporate charters or bylaws without violating the First Amendment.

U.S. Const. Amend. 1. Corporations and Business Organizations A corporation has only such powers as are expressly granted by its charter or by statute and such as may impliedly be derived from its corporate purposes. Religious Societies The purpose of religious corporations is to enable the church to attend more readily and efficiently to their temporal affairs, without any power or authority to interfere with forms of worship, articles of faith, or any other matter, relating strictly to spiritual concerns.

Religious Societies The powers of a religious corporation are not limited to those specifically provided in the Maryland Religious Corporations Article, but are part of the Maryland Corporations and Associations Article, which confers “general powers” upon corporations, including religious corporations, to perform acts that are consistent with their charters. Religious Societies In the absence of any provision otherwise, a religious corporations’ Board of Trustees is the body corporate, not the congregation. Religious Societies When there is no evidence that a religious corporations’ Board of Trustees’ decision is based on religious doctrine, biblical interpretations or other ecclesiastical matters, civil courts are permitted to resolve such disputes. Circuit Court for Queen Anne’s County Case No. C-17-CV-19-000089 REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1258 September Term, 2019 R. JAMES VAUGHN v. FAITH BIBLE CHURCH OF SUDLERSVILLE, ET AL.

Leahy, Shaw Geter, Eyler, James R. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ. Opinion by Shaw Geter, J. Filed: November 19, 2020 Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. Suzanne Johnson 2020-11-19 12:38-05:00 Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk 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: 1. Does the Maryland Religious Corporation Act permit the Shore Haven religious corporation trustees to terminate the pastor of Shore Haven Baptist Church? 2. Does the Maryland Religious Corporation Act permit the Shore Haven religious corporation trustees to control the membership of Shore Haven Baptist Church?

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 (2010) (quoting Jones v. State, 379 Md. 704 , 713–15 (2004)) (internal quotation 1 Appellee changed its corporate name on June 3, 2019, from Shore Haven Baptist Church of Sudlersville, Maryland to Faith Bible Church of Sudlersville, after the Complaint was filed. 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 (quoting Gen.

Motors Corp. v. Seay, 388 Md. 341, 364 (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. BACKGROUND 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. 2 Md. Code Ann., Corps. & Ass’ns § 5-301(b) defines “church” as “any church, religious society, or congregation of any sect, order, or denomination.” 2 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 (or the corresponding provision of any future United States Revenue Law), 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 3 Md. Code Ann., Corps. & Ass’ns § 5-304. Articles of incorporation, filing and contents provides: (a) The trustees shall file articles of incorporation for record with the Department. (b) The articles of incorporation shall contain: (1) The plan of the church; (2) The address of the principal place of worship of the church; and (3) The name and address of the resident agent of the church. 4 Md. Code Ann., Corps. & Ass’ns § 5-302 Plan of religious corporation contents, requires the adult members of the church who form a religious corporation to: (1) Elect at least four individuals to act as trustees in the name of and on behalf of the church; and (2) Prepare a plan of the church. The plan of the church shall include: (1) The purposes for which the religious corporation is formed; (2) The name of the religious corporation and the church; (3) The time and manner for election and succession of trustees; and (4) The exact qualifications of individuals eligible: (i) To vote at elections; and (ii) To be elected to office. 3 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 5 The conduct at issue included: bringing a gun into the church and leaving it unattended and accessible to children, resisting the creation of a school and summer camp under Shore Haven’s umbrella, a lack of organizational skills, and attempting to organize a “bow shoot” at Shore Haven, despite being informed that Shore Haven was not insured for such activity. 6 Md. Code Ann., Corps. & Ass’ns § 5-307(c) provides: unless the plan permits otherwise, the minister of the church or, if there is more than one minister, the senior minister shall be a trustee of the religious corporation, in addition to the trustees required by § 5-302(b)(1) of this subtitle. 7 As of the trial date, appellant continued to reside on Shore Haven’s residential property. 4 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. STANDARD OF REVIEW 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 (2013) (citing Atkinson v. Anne Arundel C’nty, 428 Md. 723, 741 (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 (2014). “[A] legal interpretation . . . is reviewed without according the circuit court any special deference.” Id. Questions involving statutory interpretation are legal issues which 5 we review de novo. Damon v. Robles, 245 Md. App. 233, 243 (2020) (citing Harvey v. Marshall, 389 Md. 243, 257 (2005)).

DISCUSSION 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 (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 (1997) (quoting