Beachy v. Miss. Dist. Council for Assemblies of God

1

KEVIN BEACHY, EDDIE KINSEY, ANDRE MULET, AND KRIS WILLIAMS v. MISSISSIPPI DISTRICT COUNCIL FOR ASSEMBLIES OF GOD

No. 2021-CA-01007-SCT

Supreme Court of Mississippi, En Banc

August 24, 2023

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/23/2021

CHANCERY COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARRISON COUNTY HON. JAMES B. PERSONS TRIAL JUDGE

TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: AMBER LYNN KIPFMILLER LISA ANDERSON REPPETO ANDREW SCOTT HARRIS SABRINA BOSARGE RUFFIN MALCOLM F. JONES

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: MALCOLM F. JONES

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: LISA ANDERSON REPPETO

KITCHENS, PRESIDING JUSTICE

¶1. The General Council of the Assemblies of God (General Council) governs the Assemblies of God denomination. Its affiliate, the Mississippi District Council for Assemblies of God (District), governs the denomination's local churches in Mississippi, including Gulf Coast Worship Center (GCWC) in Long Beach.

¶2. In January 2017, Kevin Beachy, the pastor of GCWC, did not renew his credentials as an ordained pastor with the General Council. Various meetings and communications were had between Beachy and the District concerning the nonrenewal of his credentials as required by the General Council and District constitutions and bylaws. On March 15, 2017, Beachy informed the District that he and GCWC intended to disaffiliate from the General Council. The following day, March 16, 2017, the District informed Beachy that GCWC was being placed under District supervision. Then, on March 19, 2017, the GCWC congregation voted to disaffiliate from the General Council. The congregation voted also to remove a reverter clause from its constitution and bylaws. This clause would have caused the GCWC's property to revert to the District in the event that GCWC ceased operating as a "church body."

¶3. On November 28, 2017, the District filed a chancery court petition for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against Kevin Beachy and the GCWC board of trustees, Eddie Kinsey, Andre Mulet, and Kris Williams (collectively, Defendants). Both the District and Defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted the District's motion for summary judgment and denied Defendants' motion. Defendants filed a timely appeal.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

¶4. On November 7, 1988, the GCWC congregation voted for their local church to become a member of the Assemblies of God denomination. A quorum of the congregation agreed to accept the tenets of faith of the Assemblies of God, agreed to be governed by and to accept the constitution and bylaws of the General and District Council, and they agreed to have GCWC's property deeded to the Assemblies of God, the trustees of the local Assemblies of God church, and their successors in office.^[1] After the meeting on November 7, 1988, a GCWC trustee assured the District that the deed was worded as specified by the General Council. On November 28, 1988, GCWC filed its formal application for affiliation with the General Council. In its application, GCWC stated that it was applying with the "purpose of cooperating with other Assemblies of like precious faith and assuming the responsibilities incidental thereto, as set forth in the Constitution and Bylaws of the General Council, and the Constitution and Bylaws of the [District]." On December 2, 1988, the General Council identified GCWC as a General Council affiliated local assembly.

¶5. GCWC remained affiliated with the General Council and Assemblies of God church without disagreement until 2017. In January 2017, Beachy, the pastor of GCWC, did not renew his credentials as an ordained minister of the Assemblies of God church as mandated by the General Council. When a District representative contacted him about the nonrenewal of his credentials, Beachy informed the representative that he did not intend to renew his credentials as an ordained minister under the General Council. As a result, the District placed Beachy under investigation for his failure to renew his credentials.

¶6. After several failed attempts to reconcile, Beachy told the District that GCWC intended to disaffiliate from the Assemblies of God church. On March 16, 2017, the District informed him that GCWC had been reclassified as a "District Supervised assembly" due to the pastor's failure to renew his credentials with the church, which violated the General Council's constitution, article XI, section 1a(6). The District explained also that if members of GCWC intended to disaffiliate, both the General Council's and District's constitution and bylaws required that representatives of the church be given an opportunity to address the GCWC congregation about remaining affiliated with the Assemblies of God church. No such meeting ever was held.

¶7. On March 19, 2017, the GCWC congregation, with Beachy functioning as its pastor, voted to disaffiliate from the General Council and Assemblies of God church. The congregation voted also to amend its constitution and bylaws to remove a provision that called for GCWC's property to revert to the District "if the assembly cease[d] to function as a church body[.]"

¶8. On November 28, 2017, the District filed in chancery court a petition for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against Defendants. The District requested that the trial court declare that the actions taken by the GCWC's congregation at its meeting March 19, 2017, were void; that GCWC had been under District supervision since March 16, 2017; and that all GCWC personal property, real property, and improvements were under the District's control. The District requested also injunctive relief to allow it to assume control of GCWC and to install an interim pastor.

¶9. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. They argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the issues of this case were purely ecclesiastical. The District argued that "ecclesiastical abstention require[d] that [the] [c]ourt grant the relief sought" because "the District's decisions to classify [GCWC] as a District Supervised assembly and to remove and replace Beachy as pastor are ecclesiastical in nature" and the case involves control of property. Regarding property, the District argued that GCWC adopted the constitution and bylaws of the General Council, which "acknowledge the affiliation with the General Council and acknowledge that all property [was] held in trust for the benefit of the District and the General Council." Additionally, the District argued that the church's bylaws contained a reverter clause, which provided that "in the event that the assembly ceases to function as a church body, the said property, real or chattel, shall revert to [District]." The trial judge denied the motion to dismiss, determining that

The General Council of the Assemblies of God and the District, of which GCWC is a member, is a hierarchal church fellowship and as such the court may not interfere in the District's action in placing GCWC under District Supervision or in considering the actions of GCWC at the March 19, 2017 meeting to be void. The District's decisions are those of a higher authority within the church's hierarchal system and are protected by the law of judicial abstention as ecclesiastical disputes.

¶10. The District moved to amend its petition, which was granted on November 18, 2019. In its amended petition, the District sought the trial court's declaration that: (1) the actions taken at the March 19, 2017, meeting were void; (2) GCWC had been under the District's supervision since March 16, 2017; and (3) GCWC's property, real and personal, including improvements, "were intended to be held in trust and are under the control of the District Council."

¶11. On May 15, 2020, the District filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that (1) it had authority to govern GCWC, the GCWC had been under District supervision since March 16, 2017, thereby making the votes taken on March 19, 2017, null and void; (2) GCWC's property was held in trust for the District; and (3) the District was entitled to injunctive relief. In response, Defendants asserted that they had authority to hold a business meeting on March 19, 2017, and vote to disaffiliate from the Assemblies of God church. They asserted also that the GCWC property was not subject to a trust in favor of the District or the General Council. Defendants disputed the factual statements in the District's affidavits. They argued that GCWC's decision to affiliate with the General Council did not mean that it became part of a hierarchical church; that the GCWC never ceased operating as a church body; that the GCWC was unlawfully placed under District supervision; that neither the deeds nor the articles of incorporation of the GCWC refer to the District or the General Council; and that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine bars the trial court from exercising jurisdiction over governance issues within the church.

¶12. On the same day the District filed its motion for summary judgment, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and for summary judgment. Defendants argued: (1) GCWC's deed did not mention the District or General Council nor had the church ceased being a "church body," so the property does not belong to the District; (2) the District failed to join GCWC Whitney Bank d/b/a Hancock Bank, and the General Council as necessary parties to the suit; (3) the statute of limitations prohibited the District's trust claims; (4) the statute of frauds prohibited the court from finding an express trust existed; and (5) merger and parole evidence rules prohibited the consideration of verbal representations. In response to Defendants' motion, the District argued that its trust claims were not barred by the statute of limitations. But the District argued also that it "does not claim an express trust and, therefore, ...