The court’s decision established Indiana as a “neutral principles of law” state. “Because the neutral-principles-of-law approach permits greater fairness, consistency, and equality of application to all church property disputes regardless of the structure of the denominational church organization, we adopt the neutral-principles-of-law approach for settling property disputes between religious organizations in Indiana,” the decision read.

The PCUSA Presbytery of Ohio Valley, along with the Synod of Lincoln Trails, is asking that its case against an Indiana congregation be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

On July 31, 2012 the Indiana Supreme Court published its opinion in the case of the Presbytery of Ohio Valley and the Synod of Lincoln Trails of the Presbyterian Church (USA) vs. Olivet Presbyterian Church of Evansville, Inc.

The court’s decision established Indiana as a “neutral principles of law” state. “Because the neutral-principles-of-law approach permits greater fairness, consistency, and equality of application to all church property disputes regardless of the structure of the denominational church organization, we adopt the neutral-principles-of-law approach for settling property disputes between religious organizations in Indiana,” the decision read.

The presbytery and synod recently filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, stating that “This case presents an important and recurring issue concerning religious freedom and the standards for resolving church property disputes. … The petition should be granted because the Indiana decision directly implicates a conflict in decisions among state courts on a fundamental issue of federal law. The PCUSA Property Trust Clause is subject to conflicting interpretations in different states, and this national church organization is denied the uniformity that is essential to its polity.”

The writ argued that the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision affects other religious denomination and thousands of churches, “thereby imposing a substantial burden and considerable cost on numerous not-for-profit religious organizations.”

It gave three reasons for the U.S. Supreme Court to grant the petition:

“The Indiana Supreme Court’s decision violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments, creates confusion and disagreement over Jones v. Wolf and other decisions of this court, and should not stand.

“The Indiana Supreme Court’s decision conflicts with decisions of other state supreme courts applying Jones and addressing the PCUSA property trust clause or similar provisions of other church denominations.

“This case is important and reflects recurring inconsistency, unpredictability and burdens imposed by unconstitutional applications of the neutral principles of law approach for resolving church property disputes.”

“This court should grant this petition to ensure that the intentions of religious organizations who changed their constitutions like the PCUSA and of congregations like Olivet who pledged to abide by such constitutions are given effect. Moreover, this court should ensure that the burdens of following a neutral principles approach are no greater for hierarchical, national denominations than they are for more localized, congregational churches. No particular form of church governance or polity should be preferred by the state,” read the writ.

In its decision, the Indiana Supreme Court remanded the case back to a trial court, because “Genuine issues of disputed fact, resulting from varying inferences possible from the designated evidence, must be resolved at trial rather than on summary judgment.”

Those issues include the presbytery’s claim to an implied trust, since “reasonable inferences are possible and thus produce a genuine issue of material fact regarding the requisite unequivocal intent of Olivet to create a trust.”

Source