St. John Missionary Baptist Church v. Flakes
547 S.W.3d 311
Tex. App.2018Background
- In September 2014 St. John church members voted to terminate Pastor Bertrain Bailey; Bailey refused to vacate and church property transactions followed. Appellants (members who sought removal) filed suit seeking injunctions to stop sales of church property.
- Appellees moved to dismiss/plea to the jurisdiction on two independent grounds: (1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the ecclesiastical-abstention (ministerial exception) doctrine and (2) lack of standing. The trial court granted the motion without stating which ground supported dismissal.
- On appeal appellants briefed and argued only the standing ground; they did not challenge the ecclesiastical-abstention ground.
- The majority holds that when an order rests on independent grounds and an appellant fails to challenge one of them, the appellate court must accept the unchallenged ground and affirm unless reversible error is shown.
- The court considered whether Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.9(b) permits an appellate court to identify unbriefed issues sua sponte and request supplemental briefing; the majority concluded the rule does not authorize the court to reformulate or raise new issues for a party.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should consider an unbriefed independent ground (ecclesiastical abstention) when the trial court's judgment is silent as to basis | Appellants argued only that they had standing and did not challenge ecclesiastical abstention | Appellees argued trial court lacked jurisdiction on two independent grounds (standing and ecclesiastical abstention); dismissal should be affirmed if any ground stands | Affirmed: because appellants failed to challenge one independent ground that could support the dismissal, the unchallenged ground must be accepted and the judgment affirmed (Malooly principle applied) |
| Whether Rule 38.9(b) permits the appellate court to identify an issue not raised by appellant and order supplemental briefing after submission | Appellants implicitly relied on Rule 38.9(b) and post‑submission supplementation as a way to obtain merits review | Appellees and the majority argued Rule 38.9(b) does not authorize courts to sua sponte reformulate or raise new issues for an appellant; courts must remain neutral adjudicators | Held: Rule 38.9(b) allows some remedial action for defective briefs but does not permit the court to sua sponte identify and require briefing on an issue not raised by a party; courts cannot reverse on unbriefed issues |
| Whether subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised sua sponte on appeal | N/A (appellants did not contest) | Appellees raised subject-matter jurisdiction below; courts may always address subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte | Not disputed: subject-matter jurisdiction is an exception—courts must consider it sua sponte and may request briefing on it (Rusk State Hosp.) |
| Whether affirmance here is an improper exercise of "briefing waiver" vs. affirmance for failure to show reversible error | Appellants characterized outcome as unfair and argued for supplemental briefing | Appellees and majority treated affirmance as required because appellant failed to demonstrate that reversal was necessary under Rule 44.1(a) | Held: This is not "briefing waiver" but an affirmation because appellant failed to show reversible error; Rule 44.1(a) requires appellant to show harmful error |
Key Cases Cited
- Malooly Bros., Inc. v. Napier, 461 S.W.2d 119 (Tex. 1970) (appellate court must accept unchallenged independent grounds supporting judgment and affirm)
- RSL Funding, LLC v. Pippins, 499 S.W.3d 423 (Tex. 2016) (affirmance on alternative unchallenged ground when appellant failed to brief that ground)
- State v. Bailey, 201 S.W.3d 739 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (38.9(b) permits curing substantive defects but does not authorize courts to reverse on issues not raised by parties)
- Rusk State Hosp. v. Black, 392 S.W.3d 88 (Tex. 2012) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and must be considered sua sponte)
- Inpetco, Inc. v. Tex. Am. Bank, 729 S.W.2d 300 (Tex. 1987) (appellate courts should give opportunity to rebrief rather than summarily deeming waiver in some circumstances)
- Fredonia State Bank v. General American Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279 (Tex. 1994) (appellate courts have discretion to choose between deeming a point waived and allowing amendment or rebriefing)
- Brownlow v. State, 319 S.W.3d 649 (Tex. 2010) (decretal portion of judgment controls over recitals when conflict exists)
- Oliphant Fin. LLC v. Angiano, 295 S.W.3d 422 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2009) (if an independent ground fully supports judgment and appellant assigns no error to it, error in challenged grounds is harmless)