St. John Missionary Baptist Church, Symphuel Anderson, Beverly Davis, and Patricia Mays v. Merle Flakes, Eloise Square, Mary Jo Evans, Anne Katherine White, and Ella Mae Rollins, 595 S.W.3d 211

Background

Dispute over control of St. John Missionary Baptist Church assets after a 2014 congregation vote to terminate Pastor Bertrain Bailey; Merle Flakes (trustee chair) continued to pay Bailey and supporters sold church property.
Plaintiffs (members who sought to remove Bailey) sued for injunctive relief; Bailey/supporters defended and Flakes moved to dismiss, asserting lack of standing and ecclesiastical-abstention.
Trial court granted the motion to dismiss but did not specify whether dismissal rested on standing, ecclesiastical abstention, or both.
On appeal St. John briefed only the standing issue; the Dallas Court of Appeals (en banc) affirmed, holding it could not itself request supplemental briefing and was bound to affirm under Malooly Bros. v. Napier.
Texas Supreme Court reversed and remanded: it held the court of appeals had authority under Rule 38.9 to obtain additional briefing because the ecclesiastical-abstention question was fairly included in (and inextricably entwined with) the standing argument.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a court of appeals may order supplemental briefing when an appellant fails to brief a ground the trial court may have relied on	Rule 38.9 allows courts to require additional briefing to properly present the case	Court of appeals claimed limited authority and relied on Malooly to affirm when an appellant omits a possible ground	Court may order supplemental briefing under Rule 38.9 when the unbriefed issue is fairly included in a briefed issue
Whether Malooly required affirmance where the trial court didn’t state its ground and the appellant omitted one ground on appeal	Malooly should not bar appellate courts from seeking briefing when issues are entwined	Malooly mandates affirmance if an unchallenged independent ground exists	Malooly does not control here because the unbriefed ecclesiastical-abstention ground was not an independent basis apart from standing
Whether ecclesiastical-abstention was an independent ground or "fairly included" in the standing argument	Standing and ecclesiastical issues overlap; abstention was fairly included and intertwined with standing	Abstention was a separate, unbriefed jurisdictional ground the court could rely on	The issues were inextricably entwined; ecclesiastical-abstention was fairly included in the briefing
Whether appellate courts may instead deem unbriefed points waived rather than request briefing	Appellant invited review and preserved the issue by arguing substance without using labels	Defendant argued appellate discretion should be exercised to decline supplementation and affirm	Courts retain discretion to either request additional briefing or deem points waived; here supplementing was authorized

Key Cases Cited

Malooly Bros., Inc. v. Napier, 461 S.W.2d 119 (Tex. 1970) (trial-court judgment can stand if appellant fails to challenge a possible ground for decision)
Garza v. Garcia, 137 S.W.3d 36 (Tex. 2004) (appellate rules construed liberally to favor substance over procedure)
First United Pentecostal Church of Beaumont v. Parker, 514 S.W.3d 214 (Tex. 2017) (courts generally hesitate to reject claims for waiver/failure-to-preserve reasons)
Consol. Eng’g Co. v. S. Steel Co., 699 S.W.2d 188 (Tex. 1985) (issues are "inextricably entwined" when one cannot be mentioned without directing attention to the other)
Rohrmoos Venture v. UTSW DVA Healthcare, LLP, 578 S.W.3d 469 (Tex. 2019) (a brief that puts the court on notice may invite correction of legal error)
Fredonia State Bank v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279 (Tex. 1994) (appellate court has discretion to permit amendment or deem a point waived)
Standard Fruit & Vegetable Co. v. Johnson, 985 S.W.2d 62 (Tex. 1998) (generally, leave is required to file amended or supplemental briefs and appellate courts have discretion to allow them)