It took almost seven years, but a legal dispute between a presbytery and a congregation ended recently with the church receiving a clear title to its property valued at $11.2 million, without having to pay a monetary settlement.
On April 8, Windwood Presbyterian Church in Houston, Texas and the New Covenant Presbytery reached an agreement through court ordered mediation in which the presbytery agreed to provide clear title for all property and assets of the church to its trustees by June 5, 2015 in exchange for the church dropping the suit. No money will be paid by either side, except that paid by each party to their respective attorneys.
Windwood had filed a lawsuit in September of 2008 to clarify ownership of its property and assets. The lawsuit challenged the trust clause in the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s constitution that claimed all church property and assets were held in trust by the local churches for the benefit of the denomination. The church argued that the trust was improperly formed since the beneficiary of a trust cannot create that trust, and that Windwood had never agreed to form one. And, even if such trust did exist, the lawsuit argued that it was not irrevocable and Windwood revoked it.
“With this agreement, we are finally free from the last tie to a denomination that we have wanted to be away from for many years,” said the Rev. Kevin Rudolph, senior pastor of Windwood. “We look forward to focusing our full energies to sharing the good news of the Gospel in our area and around the world. This end is a new beginning for us and we’re excited to be moving ahead.”
A new beginning
The 1,000+ member church is moving ahead in a new denomination. In 2014, Windwood voted by 99 percent to disaffiliate from the PCUSA and join ECO: A Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians after the presbytery refused to allow it to enter into the dismissal process unless it dropped the lawsuit.
“2014 was Windwood’s 50th anniversary year, and getting into ECO as a great way to celebrate. Getting clear title to our property is a great way to start our next 50 years.” Rudolph commented.
New Covenant Presbytery, however, has refused to recognize the disaffiliation vote. Now that an agreement has been reached, the presbytery has scheduled a vote to dismiss the church to ECO at its July meeting.
Rudolph said that Windwood will not be participating, or acknowledging the presbytery’s action. “We’ve happily been a part of ECO for almost a year now. What the Presbytery of New Covenant does or doesn’t do is not relevant to us. We have been, and will continue to focus on what God has in store for us in the future as we remain faithful to Him and His Word.”
This has been nearly a seven year process, said Rudolph, and “we’re very glad it is over. We’re glad to be out a denomination that thinks each local church exists to support a national church that is out of touch with the people in the churches and worse, out of touch with God’s Word. We feel like we didn’t leave the PCUSA, the PCUSA left us.
“It has been great to be in ECO where the national church recognizes that it exists to support the local churches and not the other way around. It’s been great to be in ECO and know we have a real connection based on common theological convictions. The trust level is so different in ECO compared to the years of mistrust and coercion we felt in the PCUSA.”
In the future, the church hopes to build out more of its acreage to accommodate the growth of the church and the area.
Court decisions
Windwood lost the first two rounds in court after the local court and the Appellate Court, both citing the principle of hierarchical deference — the principle that if the local church is part of a hierarchical denomination, the civil courts “defer” to the courts of the denomination — in their decisions.
Following the 2012 decision, Windwood filed a request for the whole appellate court (all nine justices, not just the three that wrote the opinion) to hear the case, but before it could rule on that motion, the Supreme Court of Texas acted in the Masterson case in August of 2013.
In that case, between the national Episcopal Church and the Fort Worth Diocese that had pulled out of the denomination, the Court clarified that church property disputes in Texas were to be judged solely according to neutral principles of law and defined specifically how that was to be understood. In addition, the Texas Supreme Court stated that this was a clarification of the law, not a new law and therefore would apply to cases prior to the clarification.
As a result, in January of 2014, the Appellate Court reversed its ruling in the Windwood case, voided the judgment of the Appellate Court and the lower court and remanded the case back to the lower court.
Windwood filed for summary judgment, but before the March 9 date set for oral arguments, the presbytery requested court ordered mediation to see if the case could be settled. The request was granted and the mediation was set for April 8, 2015.
Rudolph said that the Windwood congregation is “glad it is over.”
“We have been, and will continue to focus on what God has in store for us in the future as we remain faithful to Him and His Word,” Rudolph concluded.
24 Comments. Leave new
“The church argued that the trust was improperly formed since the beneficiary of a trust cannot create that trust, and that Windwood had never agreed to form one.”
The hand writing is on the wall in Texas, and the louisville sluggers know it. Good for Windwood!
Just finished studying the Code of the Commonwealth of Virginia; quite interesting. 64.2-720 Requirements for creation A. A trust is created only if: 5. The same person is not the sole trustee and sole beneficiary.(i.e a presbytery) And -724 A trust is void to the extent its creation was induced by…duress… Pretty clear basis for fending off all these presbyteries going after property–to include humongous financial “buy-outs”. Like POJ trying to holdup Crestwood for $3.5 MILLION!
Who paid to build and maintain all those Presbyterian Churches with their faithful labor, tithes and donations? Answer: it wasn’t PCUSA.
I realize there might have been differences in the two legal cases I’m not aware of, but on the surface it appears Windwood held fast where Highland Park caved. Highland Park negotiated with Grace Presbytery; Windwood renounced New Covenant’s authority. Highland Park paid an exit ransom; Windwood won total victory. I hope Windwood’s triumph will embolden other Texas congregations to take on their presbyteries and leave the apostate PCUSA.
Trouble is, in Virginia there have been previous judgements that have totally ignored these regulations.
I honestly believe that if HPPC did not decide to settle, they would have gotten out without paying a cent.
I agree RC. And the real shame is not that HPPC gave the money to Grace Presbytery, but that its capitulation enabled Grace to retain the power of the trust clause to keep the 145 or so other congregations in that presbytery from being able to leave.
The legal landscape in Texas–with Masterson at the TX Supreme Court level, the new district court decision granting the Fort Worth diocese its property, the district court decision in Houston granting FPS Houston title to its property, and this decision–is rapidly changing. If New Covenant appeals the FPS Houston decision, it will almost certainly lose. When that decision is final, all Texas PC(USA) churches will be the presumptive owners of their property, and presbyteries will lose their “hammer.” All that a congregation will need to do is research their title, amend it if necessary, check their corporate filing language with the state, clarify that if necessary, and go to court for a declaratory judgment that they own their property. Which would be advisable for those congregations that have no plans to conduct same-sex marriages. Since the same-sex advocates based their argument on justice, they cannot, over time, allow “injustice”–an unwillingness to marry same-sex couples–to endure for long. “May” will shift to “Should” then to “Must”. Winners, certain they own the high moral ground, simply cannot resist consolidating their victories. “Reformed, and always Reforming” will provide the perfect rationale to force the transition from Freedom of Conscience to Justice for All.
Choices have consequences. The PC(USA) believes it can win a mostly bloodless victory by moving to same-sex marriage and holding hostage the property of those congregations that want to move. In Texas, they’re losing that power quickly.
“FPS” should be “FPC”.
Trouble is, Grace lost that power with this latest decision.
I don’t think that you’ll see “may” becoming “must” with regard to PC(USA) pastors performing homosexual “weddings”. That a minister has the prerogative to decline to do a wedding for whatever reason is too sacrosanct.
A far more likely scenario will be presbyteries refusing to ordain new pastors, or authorize new calls of pastors already ordained, who refuse to participate in the ordination of practicing homosexuals (à la Kenyon), and the theologically liberal hegemony in the PC(USA) will get its way on marriage in that fashion. After all, there are very few pastors who would be willing to participate in the ordination of a practicing homosexual who wouldn’t also be willing to perform a same-gender “wedding”.
I hope you’re right, I don’t know if the Windwood case was definitive for all such cases in the state.
If you’re thinking of the Episcopal churches of northern Virginia, I think it’s a different situation. Congregations have had a much harder time in leaving because there is a stronger case for hierarchy there than in the Presbyterian Church. Lately, though, the courts have recognized the rights of dioceses to leave because that’s essentially where the hierarchy stops. I’m thinking of Ft. Worth, Quincy (Ill), and South Carolina (with perhaps a few more to follow later).
I’m curious, does anyone know of any presbytery that is discussing the possibility of leaving en mass? Or is that entirely implausible at this late stage.
No….we definitely WILL see persecution/belittlement of pastors who will not perform the ceremonies. That will follow fairly soon probably.
The Form of Government says that the law should be equal to all. Does this decision mean that the PCUSA will be forced to relinquish all claims to property ? Or will we see the continuing inequality presbytery to presbytery?
Presbyteries will continue to act independently. First, they have significant autonomy and different personalities. Second, they all begin with an implied trust starting point to property ownership. But where they go from there is largely dependent on what state they’re in–one that defers to denominations hierarchy or one that applies neutral principles of law. (There’s a fairly strong correlation to blue state/red state political leanings to hierarchical/neutral.) I’m in Texas. Until the recent Texas Supreme Court decision in Masterson, Texas law was still hierarchical. As this article explains, it’s rapidly changing to neutral principles and individual congregations are reclaiming property ownership whenever a conflict goes into the legal system.
Actually, the court in Masterson specifically said that their decision was not a change in the law (hierarchical to neutral principles) but a clarification on the existing law (Though I must admit that no court in Texas ruled that way until the Masterson decision).
The time is already here. Carlisle Presbytery just kicked a pastor out of his church because he said we would not do SSM. The presbytery will try to spin this another way, but that’s all it will be – spin. The witch-hunt has already begun.
Highland Park had other legal issues with Grace Presbytery beyond the trust clause. It does come down to each individual church case, but each church is its own corporation. But in our case (Windwood’s) the only claim Presbytery had on our property was the trust clause. For any Presbyterian church in Texas, if the only legal claim is the trust clause, they can get out the same way we did. That’s the difference between us and Highland Park.
Court decisions in several states have invalidated the trust clause. South Carolina, Louisiana, and Texas come to mind, but I think there are others.
It would appears that PCUSA congregations in those states would be free to leave with their property whenever they choose to do so.
Each congregation, of course, should seek legal counsel.
That’s a pretty serious allegation. Do you have proof?
The action in Carlisle Presbytery was NOT a result of the pastor’s theological convictions. There were other very serious issues of pastoral and church leadership as noted in the following open letter to the Presbytery.
http://carlislepby.org/PDF%20Files/Pastoral_Lttr_Lowe_2015.pdf
I do think, however, over time the issue of participation in same-sex marriages will become, like the Kenyon case of ordaining women, a “litmus test” for new and even currently ordained clergy in at least some Presbyteries. The Stated Clerks in their comments on the Amendment prior to the vote expressed concern about the wording possibly being interpreted in that way.
Just speculation here I guess, but I believe the reason that the presbytery let Windwood go without having to pay any extortion fee (er, I mean gracious dismissal settlement) is so that they would not lose the lawsuit. They are losing this battle to avoid losing the war. If Windwood actually wins its lawsuit, then there is clear legal precedent, at least in Texas, that local church properties are not owned by the denomination. Probably, those high-powered PCUSA lawyers knew where the judgment on the lawsuit was headed, and the implications of the lawsuit are far more damaging to the PCUSA’s extortion scheme (er, property clause) than letting one church go. So they agree to let Windwood leave if the lawsuit is dropped.