Atlantic Korean American Presbytery v. Shalom Presbyterian Church of Washington, Inc.
1930234
Va. Ct. App.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Shalom Presbyterian Church (Shalom) joined the Atlantic Korean American Presbytery (AKAP) regionally and engaged with AKAP for years (per capita payments, ordination petitions, pastor attendance), but its formal covenant-signing under PC(USA)’s Book of Order was disputed.
- In 2022 AKAP investigated Pastor Seo’s qualifications, appointed an administrative commission to assume jurisdiction over Shalom, and sought control of Shalom’s property after Shalom refinanced church real estate without presbytery approval.
- Shalom filed a remedial complaint with the PC(USA) Synod asserting it was a PC(USA)/AKAP member; the Synod denied relief. Shalom did not appeal to the General Assembly.
- The next day Shalom’s congregation voted to terminate its connection with AKAP and filed a declaratory-judgment action in Fairfax Circuit Court seeking a declaration that it was not a PC(USA)/AKAP member and that AKAP had no trust interest in the property.
- The circuit court granted Shalom summary judgment, holding no express or constructive trust existed and that Shalom was not a PC(USA) member; AKAP appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reversed for lack of jurisdiction, holding the Synod adjudication (invoked by Shalom) made the ecclesiastical determination binding on secular courts absent fraud or collusion; the case was remanded with instructions to vacate and dismiss Shalom’s complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Shalom) | Defendant's Argument (AKAP) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the circuit court have subject-matter jurisdiction to decide Shalom’s membership/status after Shalom first filed in the Synod? | Civil courts may resolve property/membership disputes using neutral principles; Shalom disavowed PC(USA) covenant and sought secular adjudication. | Ecclesiastical abstention bars secular review because parties invoked Synod adjudication; Synod decision is binding absent fraud/collusion. | Court of Appeals: No jurisdiction—Synod decision binding; secular court may not relitigate membership after ecclesiastical adjudication. |
| Was Shalom a member of PC(USA)/AKAP such that the Book of Order and trust provisions applied? | Shalom argued it never completed the covenant required by the Book of Order, so it was not bound and held title free of denominational trust. | AKAP argued Shalom’s course of dealing (applications, participation, standing rule, per-capita payments) established membership and submission to the Book of Order. | Court declined to decide membership on the merits because Synod’s prior adjudication controls; circuit court’s contrary declaration exceeded jurisdiction. |
| Did PC(USA)’s Book of Order create an express or constructive trust in Shalom’s property enforceable in secular court? | Shalom: deeds and trust documents show it holds legal title; no clear intent to create an express trust; constructive trust not supported under neutral principles. | AKAP: Book of Order’s trust language and Shalom’s conduct create an equitable interest; implied trust principles apply. | Court of Appeals: Left unresolved on merits—dismissal without prejudice; property claims may be refiled after ecclesiastical dispute concludes and if neutral-principles review is possible. |
| Can a party collaterally attack an adverse church tribunal ruling in civil court by reversing its prior ecclesiastical position? | Shalom treated itself as non-member in civil suit and argued courts can decide. | AKAP: collateral attack violates Milivojevich/Watson; litigant cannot accept church tribunal jurisdiction then seek secular reversal. | Court of Appeals: Collateral attack impermissible—invoking ecclesiastical forum and then litigating the opposite position in civil court deprives the secular court of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 (U.S. 1871) (foundational ecclesiastical-abstention rule—civil courts must accept highest church judicatory decisions in hierarchical bodies)
- Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696 (U.S. 1976) (civil courts cannot reject highest ecclesiastical tribunals’ governance decisions absent fraud or collusion)
- Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (U.S. 1979) (approved neutral-principles approach for some church-property disputes but defers where adjudication would require resolving ecclesiastical questions)
- Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94 (U.S. 1952) (recognized church autonomy in governance and property questions to protect free exercise)
- Presbyterian Church in U.S. v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Mem’l Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440 (U.S. 1969) (reaffirmed limits on civil inquiry into doctrinal questions; endorsed neutral-principles where feasible)
- Norfolk Presbytery v. Bollinger, 214 Va. 500 (Va. 1974) (Virginia applied neutral-principles for church-property disputes but did not address cases where ecclesiastical tribunals already adjudicated)
- Pure Presbyterian Church of Wash. v. Grace of God Presbyterian Church, 296 Va. 42 (Va. 2018) (Virginia precedent on ecclesiastical abstention and when civil courts may apply neutral principles)