Tom Slagle v. The Church Of The First Born Of Tennessee
M2015-00297-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Aug 7, 2017Background
- The Church of the Firstborn (an unincorporated association founded c.1933) split in 2010 after disputes among members and deacons over doctrine and funding for Dayspring Academy (a school on church land).
- Substantial real property (multiple tracts in Robertson and Trousdale Counties) is titled in the names of trustees "for the use and benefit" of the Church; deeds contain various restrictions and alleged rights of first refusal.
- After the split, a White House congregation group voted (Nov. 21, 2010) to affirm a new slate of deacons, later incorporated as The Church of the Firstborn of Tennessee, Inc.; competing Hartsville members (including some original trustees and deacons) asserted continued control under historic practice/bylaws.
- Slagle and other dissenting deacons/trustees sued to quiet title and sought declarations that the pre-split trustees retained ownership/control; the Church corporation and Dayspring sought, among other relief, a congregational vote to determine control.
- The chancery court found the Church’s governance was "connectional/hierarchical," concluded the board of deacons controlled the property, granted partial summary judgment to the Slagle plaintiffs, and denied the corporation/Dayspring’s motion. The Church corporation and Dayspring appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Slagle) | Defendant's Argument (Church Corp./Dayspring) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Church hierarchical/connectional or congregational for property control? | Church historically vested business authority in Board of Deacons; governance not congregational. | Church Corp./Dayspring: historical congregational votes on property show congregational polity for property matters. | Court: Genuine factual disputes exist; remand required to determine polity for property control. |
| Should a congregational vote determine who controls Church property? | No; property decisions were made by deacons/trustees under historical practice/bylaws. | Yes; neutral-principles and ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine permit a congregational vote if church is congregational for property. | Court: Denied Church Corp./Dayspring summary judgment on vote because they lack standing; remanded on property-control question due to material factual disputes. |
| Do Church Corp. and Dayspring have standing to seek a congregational vote or assert property ownership? | N/A (they are defendants below). | Church Corp./Dayspring claimed successor interest and sought congregational vote. | Court: Church Corp. and Dayspring lack standing to seek a congregational vote to determine Church property control. |
| Do the trustees (named by pre-2010 Elder/Overseer) retain title/control of the contested property? | Trustees (Slagle side) contend trustees hold title for the Church and remained in control pre-split; therefore title/control remains with those trustees. | Church Corp./Dayspring argue contested property decisions historically involved congregational approval in many instances and that post-split corporate actors claim control. | Court: Trial court's grant to Slagle plaintiffs reversed in part — material facts are disputed about historic practice and authority; summary judgment for trustees was improper; remand required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Redwing v. Catholic Bishop for Diocese of Memphis, 363 S.W.3d 436 (Tenn. 2012) (First Amendment limits courts in church governance disputes; neutral-principles approach described)
- Presbyterian Church in U.S. v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Mem'l Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440 (U.S. 1969) (courts must avoid resolving doctrinal questions in property disputes)
- Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in N. Am., 344 U.S. 94 (U.S. 1952) (definition of hierarchical church and deference to ecclesiastical authority)
- Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 (U.S. 1871) (majority rule in congregational churches absent governing rules to the contrary)
- Nance v. Busby, 18 S.W. 874 (Tenn. 1892) (in congregational polity the will of the majority controls unless church rules provide otherwise)
- Church of God at Sharpsburg, Inc. v. Maryland & Va. Eldership of Churches of God, 396 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1970) (describes permissible approaches for resolving church property disputes without doctrinal inquiry)