Dist. Advisory Bd. of the S. Fla. Dist. v. Centro De Alabanza Oasis W. Palm Beach, Inc.

338 So.3d 936

DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD OF the SOUTHERN FLORIDA DISTRICT, Church of the Nazarene, Inc., and Brian Wilson, Appellants,

v.CENTRO DE ALABANZA OASIS WEST PALM BEACH, INC., and Iglesia Del Nazareno Belen, Inc., Appellees.

No. 4D21-756

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 25, 2022]

Dane E. Leitner of Ward Damon PL, West Palm Beach, for appellants.

Elaine Johnson James of Elaine Johnson James, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, for appellees.

Conner, C.J.

Appellants, District Advisory Board of the Southern Florida District, Church of the Nazerene, Inc. ("the District") and Brian Wilson (collectively "Appellants"), appeal the final summary judgment entered below in favor of appellees, Centro De Alabanza Oasis West Palm Beach, Inc. ("Oasis, Inc.") and Iglesia Del Nazareno Belen, Inc. ("Iglesia, Inc.") (collectively "Appellees"). This dispute concerns ownership of real property operating a church. Appellants contend that pursuant to the "ecclesiastical abstention doctrine," a lay court cannot adjudicate who, within a church, is authorized to run that church. Appellants further contend that to resolve the dispute of ownership of real property in this case, a court would necessarily need to decide which faction within the church controls the church. Because we determine a genuine issue of material fact exists as to Iglesia, Inc.’s affiliation with the Church of the Nazarene, and thereby, the District, summary judgment was inappropriate and we reverse.

Background

Throughout this litigation, the parties presented opposing views of their relationship. According to Appellants, the District is an entity created by the General Assembly of the Church of the Nazarene ("the Church of the Nazarene") and is made up of interdependent local churches in the South Florida area. Appellants contended that appellee, Iglesia, Inc. is one such interdependent local church under the umbrella of the District and the Church of the Nazarene, and that the subject property dispute was ecclesiastic in nature. However, Appellees maintained that this was not a dispute between a parent church and a local church. Instead, Appellees asserted that Iglesia, Inc. is not a local church, but simply a Florida non-profit organization and a separate entity altogether.

Galo E. Poveda was ordained as a minister by the Church of the Nazarene, and founded the Iglesia Church, serving as its pastor. In 1995, Poveda formed Iglesia, Inc. and served as its president and director, with his daughter, Roxana Poveda-Mendoza, also serving as a director of the company. The summary judgment evidence below reflected that the bylaws of Iglesia, Inc. were the Manual of the Church of the Nazarene ("the Manual"), which is the governing document of the Church of the Nazarene. In 2003, Iglesia, Inc. sought to purchase real property in West Palm Beach but could not qualify for a mortgage, so the District agreed to co-sign for the mortgage. Title to the subject property was then conveyed to the District at the sale closing.

By 2007, the District had been assessed over one million dollars in fines for municipal code violations on the property. The District then recorded a warranty deed transferring title and fee simple ownership of the property to Iglesia, Inc. Notably, the warranty deed's language contained no restrictions or reversionary rights in favor of the District, and simply conveyed title to the property to Iglesia, Inc. in fee simple. Shortly thereafter, the District's lawyer wrote a letter to the city of West Palm Beach seeking an extension of time for Iglesia, Inc. to obtain funds in order to bring the property up to code and stating that title had just been transferred to Iglesia, Inc.

In 2014, Iglesia, Inc. resolved to withdraw from the Church of the Nazarene, formalizing a corporate resolution stating that Iglesia, Inc. would take all necessary action required by the Manual to withdraw from the Church of the Nazarene. Specifically, the corporate resolution provided that at a meeting of Iglesia, Inc.’s corporate directors, the following action was authorized:

TO TAKE ALL NECESSARY ACTION REQUIRED BY THE MANUAL OF THE CHURCH OF [THE] NAZARENE TO WITHDRAW IGLESIA DEL NAZARENO BELEN, INC. FROM THE CHURCH OF [THE] NAZARENE INCLUDING, THE EXECUTION OF ALL DOCUMENTS AND MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE WITHDRAWAL.

(emphasis added).

Thereafter, the District voted to declare Iglesia, Inc. as a "church in crisis" per the Manual, to remove the names of the local church board members as the corporate officers and appoint replacement persons as the local church's governing board, and to transfer the subject property to the District from Iglesia, Inc. As such, Wilson, the then president of the District, filed an annual report on behalf of Iglesia, Inc. identifying himself as the president of Iglesia, Inc. and also listing the newly appointed individuals as officers and directors of Iglesia, Inc. In October 2015, Wilson signed and recorded a warranty deed in his capacity as the president of Iglesia, Inc., which purported to transfer ownership and title to the subject property back from Iglesia, Inc. to the District ("the October 2015 Warranty Deed").

After discovering Wilson's annual report filing, Poveda filed an amendment to Iglesia, Inc.’s articles of incorporation, deleting all references to the persons listed therein. On behalf of Iglesia, Inc., Poveda then attempted to quitclaim the property to another entity, Oasis, Inc., for which Poveda also served as president since its incorporation in 2014. Subsequently, additional competing annual reports were filed purportedly on behalf of Iglesia, Inc. in which Wilson again claimed to be the president thereof, while Poveda deleted Wilson and his cohorts as officers and directors of Iglesia, Inc.

The Litigation

Appellees filed suit in 2016 against the District and Wilson, alleging they fraudulently filed the October 2015 Warranty Deed and annual reports in violation of section 817.535, Florida Statutes (2021). Appellees sought to quiet title to the subject property against the District asserting that Iglesia, Inc. acquired fee simple ownership and title to the subject property in 2007 from the District and that Wilson was never authorized to act on Iglesia, Inc.’s behalf, such that the October 2015 Warranty Deed he signed and recorded was fraudulent and clouded Iglesia, Inc.’s title to the property.

In response, Appellants asserted that the subject dispute related to ownership of church property such that the dispute was purely ecclesiastic in nature and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the religious matter. Appellants also brought their own counterclaim for quiet title, asserting the District was duty-bound to protect all District and church property from being diverted to any personal or corporate use other than for the church and to certify the withdrawal of any local church from the Church of the Nazarene for the purpose of implementing the transfer of title to real property.

The parties eventually filed competing motions for summary judgment, asserting the same positions taken in the complaint and answer.

At the summary judgment hearing, the parties disputed whether the Church of the Nazarene was a hierarchical church such as to enable it to invoke the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. Notably, the trial court acknowledged that if resolving the case required it to interpret provisions of the Manual, then that would not be an appropriate matter for the court to decide because that is something that would be reserved to the church. Specifically, the trial court acknowledged that the issue of what occurred when the church was declared to be "in crisis," and how the board was overtaken, presented circumstances very similar to cases in which the courts do not get involved, as such cases appear to relate to internal decisions dealing with subordinate churches.

However, the trial court reasoned that in this case, whether the church was hierarchical or congressional was not relevant to the ruling on the competing summary judgment motions. Rather, the trial court stated that it had not considered the Manual's provisions, and instead had based its judgment on the application of neutral principles of Florida real estate and corporate law to real estate transactions between two non-profit Florida corporations. In doing so, the trial court ruled in favor of Appellees, concluding that the District and its president, Wilson, were not members, directors, or officers of Iglesia, Inc. and were unauthorized to transfer title from Iglesia, Inc. back to the District, such that the October 2015 Warranty Deed was materially false, unauthorized, null and void.

Subsequently, Appellants gave notice of appeal.

Appellate Analysis

The granting of a motion for summary judgment is reviewed de novo . Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P. , 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000). Summary judgment is appropriate only where "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c). The burden is on the moving party to show "conclusively the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and the court must draw every possible inference in favor of the party against whom a summary judgment is sought." Moore v. Morris , 475 So. 2d 666, 668 (Fla. 1985). "If the evidence raises any issue of material fact, if it is conflicting, if it will permit different reasonable inferences, or if it tends to prove the issues, it should be submitted to the jury as a question of fact to be determined by it." Id.

On appeal, Appellants contend that the trial court should have dismissed the suit pursuant to the "ecclesiastical abstention doctrine." Appellants assert that pursuant to this doctrine, a lay court cannot adjudicate who, within a church, is authorized to run that church, maintaining that to resolve the dispute of ownership of real property in ...