Analysis
Why the Oregon Supreme Court ruling is a victory for neutral principles
By Carmen Fowler Laberge with PLC Board members Lloyd Lunceford and Forrest Norman, The Layman, December 4, 2012
Where there is a loser there is almost always a winner. However, in the case of the Hope Presbyterian Church of Rogue River vs., the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the Presbytery of the Cascades where the local church lost, the winner may not be so readily evident. The real victory in this case is the adoption of neutral principles of law throughout Oregon.
The gist of it
The Oregon Supreme Court ruled that church property disputes will be decided according to the same criteria as all other property disputes. The denomination’s assertion of a trust over local church property through a trust clause in the denomination’s constitution does not establish a trust without the local church also taking explicit positive action to place its property in trust.
In this case, Hope church did just that. Therefore, applying neutral principles to the facts of this particular case, the court ruled in favor of the denomination.
Neutral principles:
- avoids the state establishment of a preferred ecclesiastical hierarchy,
- protects the free exercise rights of congregations, and
- maximizes the potential for fair outcomes by looking to the facts of each case and the normal rules of state property law that impartially apply to everyone.
So, church property cases are treated like property disputes of any other kind and the outcome is not automatically weighted toward the denominational hierarchy.
Dispositive?
In the Oregon case it is notable that the Court rejected the denomination’s assertion that the trust clause automatically determines the outcome. You will hear that referred to with the term dispositive. It is also notable that, in this case, the local church added language to its own bylaws and corporate articles. Those explicit actions created a trust in favor of the denomination. The goose cooked itself.
While the specific facts of the Hope church case led to the application of neutral principles that ultimately favored the denomination, pages 20 and 21 of the ruling will be especially helpful to other churches seeking to realign their denominational affiliation with their property intact.
This portion of the Oregon opinion rejects the Georgia Supreme Court decision in Presbytery of Greater Atlanta, Inc. v. Timberridge Presbyterian Church, Inc., and sides with the Indiana Supreme Court in the Presbytery of Ohio Valley, Inc., v. Olivet Presbyterian Church, Inc.
The potential for mischief
On page 28 of its ruling, the Oregon Supremes cite continued denominational membership and a practice of seeking presbytery approval before buying or selling property as evidence of consent to a denominational trust. On the face, this seems problematic but may not prove so for many churches. Again, the facts of a particular church are critical when neutral principles are applied.
For example, former PCUS churches that exercised the exemption provision have no history of seeking presbytery approval before buying, selling or encumbering local church property. This fact, plus the Book of Order provision that says its own provisions are spiritual and moral only and are not to be accompanied by legal effects, may be used to moot the dicta on p. 28.
Higher goal achieved
While the loss for the Hope church is disheartening, a higher goal was achieved in the Oregon ruling in that the court formally adopted neutral principles, conventionally applied. That is a great victory. The Oregon Supreme Court’s opinion mentions the amicus brief filed by the Presbyterian Lay Committee which advocated for neutral principles. So, although we regret the impact of the decision on the Presbyterians in Rogue River, the precedent set by this decision for others is positive.
PLC board members Lloyd Lunceford and Forrest Norman contributed to this article.