The Georgia Supreme Court decision concurs with judgments laid down by the high courts in California, Connecticut and New York, all of which allow the denomination’s constitution (trust clause) to trump state property law. But the Eighth Circuit Court and the Supreme Courts of Arkansas and South Carolina have come down on the opposite side of that issue

Timberridge Evangelical Presbyterian Church has filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. Submitted on March 6, the petition asks the nation’s highest court to overturn a Georgia Supreme Court decision that upholds the confiscation of Timberridge’s property by Greater Atlanta Presbytery on behalf of the Presbyterian Church (USA). The Georgia court’s disputed 4-3 decision was accompanied by strongly worded dissents from its chief justice and other members of the court.

Joining Timberidge attorney Michael Kendall in this case is Carter G. Phillips, managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Sidley Austin LLP. Phillips has argued 74 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, more than any other attorney currently in private practice. Before his association with Sidley Austin, he served as a law clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger and as assistant to the United States Solicitor General, arguing nine cases before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the federal government.

The question presented is this: “Whether the ‘neutral principles’ doctrine embodied in the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment permits imposition of a trust on church property when the creation of that trust violates the state’s property and trust laws.”

The issue of settlor consent

If the U.S. Supreme Court grants Certiorari, Timberridge will argue that in awarding Timberridge’s property to the PCUSA, the Georgia exempted denominations from property laws that every secular entity in the state must obey. Georgia law, as is the case in most states, says no one can lay valid claim to another party’s property without that property owner’s consent. The fact that Timberridge owned its property was not contested, and Timberridge says that it never agreed to place its property in trust for the PCUSA.

In the Georgia case, Greater Atlanta Presbytery successfully argued that Timberridge’s membership in the PCUSA implied its agreement to abide by PCUSA decisions, including its tacit consent to an amendment to the PCUSA’s constitution imposing a trust interest on local church property.

Timberridge argued that in order for the PCUSA to enact a valid trust in Georgia, it should have obtained the express consent from each Georgia congregation that owned property. The Georgia court ruled that this application of Georgia trust law would have imposed a “burden” on the denomination. Thus the court exempted the PCUSA from a requirement to which all secular entities in the state that seek to establish trust interests over another entity’s property must comply. In effect, argued Timberridge, the Georgia decision allows the PCUSA to violate Georgia trust law.

Timberridge’s petition specified two reasons why it believes the U.S. Supreme Court should review the Georgia court’s decision: (1) “The judgment implicates a deep and mature conflict over whether a trust may be imposed on church property that secular law would not allow.” (2) “Review is warranted because the decision below is wrong.”

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.]