Attorneys representing Timberridge Presbyterian Church of McDonough, Ga. filed a motion on Dec. 1 to stay a recent decision by the Georgia Supreme Court that could effectively eject the church from its property.

Last week, the state Supreme Court reversed an appellate court ruling that declared the PCUSA’s property trust clause null and void with respect to property owned by the Timberridge.

In a notice of intent filed Thursday, Timberridge attorneys stated the church plans to appeal the state ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court and have asked the Georgia Supreme Court to defer its decision until the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether or not to consider the appeal

In a 4-3 opinion, the Georgia Supreme Court overturned a previous ruling by the Georgia Court of Appeals that favored Timberridge based on neutral principles of law. The appellate court found no evidence that Timberridge had agreed to place its property in trust for the PCUSA.

“In the absence of some showing of intention and assent on the part of Timberridge, neutral principles of law cannot support the unilateral imposition of a trust provision drafted by the purported beneficiary of the trust and the resulting deprivation of the opposing party’s property rights,” the appellate court stated.

According to Timberridge’s most recent motion, the church intends to raise the following issues before the U.S. Supreme Court:

· Whether [the Georgia Supreme Court] incorrectly applied the holding and guidelines of the [U.S.] Court in Jones v. Wolf … in its analysis of neutral principles, thereby violating the First Amendment to the [U.S.] Constitution.” Jones v. Wolf is a past decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court established a neutral-principles-of-law requirement. That requirement specifies that both parties must have the intent to create a property trust.

· Whether [the Georgia Supreme Court] violated the First Amendment … by impermissibly deciding ecclesiastical matters rather than applying neutral principles

· Whether the [U.S.] Supreme Court should resolve the conflicting opinions of numerous high courts across the nation as to application of neutral principles authorized by the decision in Jones.

Read More

[Editor’s note: Some of the original URLs (links) referenced in this article are no longer valid, so the links have been removed.]