Central Southern Illinois Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America v. Trinty Lutheran Church of Kankakee

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except
in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
2021 IL App (3d) 190292-UOrder filed March 2, 2021
____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
2021
CENTRAL/SOUTHERN ILLINOIS SYNOD ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
OF THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN ) of the 21st Judicial Circuit,
CHURCH IN AMERICA, ) Kankakee County, Illinois,
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) Appeal No. 3-19-0292
v. ) Circuit No. 16-CH-243
)
TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH OF )
KANKAKEE, JOHN EDWARDS, and )
CECILIA CAMPBELL-WATSON, ) Honorable
) Adrienne W. Albrecht,
Defendants-Appellants. ) Judge, Presiding.
____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Daugherity and Lytton concurred in the judgment.
____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
¶1 Held: The court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
¶2 The defendants, Trinity Lutheran Church of Kankakee (Trinity Lutheran), John Edwards,
and Cecilia Campbell-Watson, appeal the circuit court’s granting of summary judgment in favor
of the plaintiff, Central/Southern Illinois Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
(the Synod).
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) is made up of many judicatories
across the U.S. The Synod is one such judicatory and consists of 76 congregations in central and
southern Illinois. Trinity Lutheran was one of the congregations of the Synod. In sum, the ELCA
is a hierarchical religious organization in which the full ELCA is the highest, the Synod is an
intermediary, and congregations, such as Trinity Lutheran, are the lowest. Edwards and Campbell-
Watson were members of the Trinity Lutheran congregation.
¶5 This case concerns real property located at 1501 East Merchant Street in Kankakee, Illinois.
While the deed of such property is not in the record, it appears that the property, including a church
building, was titled in the name of Trinity Lutheran Church of Kankakee, an Illinois not-for-profit
corporation. The basic facts of the case are as follows: in 2013, Trinity Lutheran’s active
membership had dropped to between 12 and 14. The church had been receiving substantial
financial assistance from the ELCA and the Synod, but such support was terminated in 2014, when
Trinity Lutheran failed to turn in the necessary paperwork. At this time, Trinity Lutheran’s pastor
resigned, and the Synod appointed Reverend Robert Ervin. Edwards did not like Ervin. On January
25, 2016, Edwards changed the locks on the building and locked Ervin out. Edwards refused to let
Ervin or the Synod access the property. No worship services of Trinity Lutheran were held after
this point, though Edwards rented the building to another church.
¶6 In March 2016, the Synod Council met regarding Trinity Lutheran. The constitution of
Trinity Lutheran provided that “if the congregation ceases to exist, title to undisposed property
shall pass to the [Synod].” The Synod’s constitution stated:
“If any congregation of this synod has disbanded, or if the members of a
congregation agree that it is no longer possible for it to function as such, or if it is
2
the opinion of the Synod Council that membership of a congregation has become
so scattered or so diminished in numbers as to make it impractical for such a
congregation to fulfill the purposes for which it was organized or that it is necessary
for this synod to protect the congregation’s property from waste and deterioration,
the Synod Council, itself or through trustees appointed by it, may take charge and
control of the property of the congregation to hold, manage, and convey the same
on behalf of this synod. The congregation shall have the right to appeal the decision
of the Synod Assembly.”
Pursuant to these constitutional provisions, the Synod Council voted to take charge and control of
the property and assets of Trinity Lutheran, finding that the membership of the congregation had
become so scattered or diminished in numbers as to make it impractical for the congregation to
fulfill the purposes for which it was organized. Edwards still refused to provide access to the
building.
¶7 In November 2016, the Synod filed a complaint to quiet title and for possession of the real
property and assets of Trinity Lutheran. The defendants filed an answer, in which they raised,
inter alia, “affirmative defenses” stating that the Synod had not exhausted administrative remedies
because they had not given the defendants the opportunity to appeal its decision to take possession
to the ELCA.
¶8 The Synod filed a motion for summary judgment on November 13, 2018. The Synod
argued that its decision to take charge and control of Trinity Lutheran must be given deference
under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, and Edwards and Campbell-Watson had no individual
rights to any of the assets. The motion stated that, since there was no longer a congregation or
3
pastor at Trinity Lutheran, the Synod was required under its constitution to take charge and control
over Trinity Lutheran and wind down its affairs.
¶9 Attached to the petition was a deposition of Bishop S. John Roth conducted in Peoria in
August 2018. At the start of the deposition, the Synod stated that notice of the deposition was sent
to Edwards, but he was not in attendance. Roth was elected bishop in 2011 and re-elected in 2017.
As a bishop, he was the general episcopal oversight for the congregations and pastors and helped
the congregations live within the constitutional frameworks of the congregation, the Synod, and
the ELCA. He was also in charge of hiring the pastor for the church. Trinity Lutheran could not
hire a pastor without the approval of Bishop Roth. The top mission and priority of Trinity Lutheran
was to provide worship services.
¶ 10 Roth stated that from the early to mid-2000s forward, Trinity Lutheran’s numbers were
dwindling and there was a lot of contention among the congregation. He stated that it would be
very unusual for a church of its size to be able to financially support and sustain a congregation,
so Trinity Lutheran had received significant subsidies. Over a period of approximately 18 years,
Trinity Lutheran had received around $400,000 in financial assistance, which was significantly
more than any other congregation. The second highest amount of money provided to a
congregation over the same amount of time, was $90,000. By 2013, Roth stated that there had to
be a dramatic change in circumstances for there to be any future for the congregation. In 2013,
Trinity had income of approximately $44,851, which included a $24,000 subsidy from the ELCA.
Its annual expenses were around $44,000. While Trinity Lutheran no longer received financial
assistance after failing to turn in the proper paperwork in 2014, Roth stated that he and the Synod
continued to address the issues of conflict and work with the congregation to create a plan for
moving forward. By early 2015, Roth stated that there was no longer a church governing structure.
4
¶ 11 At a September 2015 meeting, the Synod Council considered taking control over Trinity
Lutheran. However, Roth asked the Council to give him more time to work with the congregation
to restore order and develop a plan. After the meeting, Roth met with some members of Trinity
Lutheran to talk about keeping the congregation alive. Roth said that they went over the difficulties
with the financial position of the congregation and the options. He told them that if they did not
work it out together, the Synod would take over the building and assets. It was after this discussion
that Edwards changed the locks on the building. Roth stated that Edwards had no authority over
Trinity Lutheran.
¶ 12 Roth stated that the Synod Council adopted its resolution to take control of the property
based on: (1) the absence of any congregational services of worship by Trinity Lutheran, (2) the
fact that there was no longer a congregational council to carry on a governance structure of Trinity
Lutheran in order to meet its constitutional requirements, (3) the absence of an annual meeting of
the congregation, and (4) the necessity to preserve the property. Roth stated that the Synod was
concerned about the state of the property because the building was deteriorating: the windows
would not lock or close properly, the heating unit was not functioning for the main worship area,
there were broken windows high up where rain could come in, and there were issues with the roof.
¶ 13 The defendants filed a response to the Synod’s motion for summary judgment and a cross-
motion for summary judgment. The motion solely attached an affidavit of Campbell-Watson; no
deed or other documents were attached.
¶ 14 After a hearing on the cross-motions for summary judgment on February 19, 2019, the
court issued a written decision granting summary judgment to the Synod. In doing so, the court
stated, in part:
5
“According to all of the organizational documents, the [S]ynod has the authority to
declare a congregation no longer viable, disband it, and assume possession of all its
assets. According to testimony of Bishop Roth, the [S]ynod, following proper
procedure, did declare Trinity Lutheran Church of Kankakee no longer viable and
ordered it to wind up its affairs. After that occurrence, the individual defendants,
particularly John Edwards, changed the locks on the church building and, without
proper authority, assumed control of the congregation assets. Further, at no time
did John Edwards or Cecilia Campbell-Watson have authority, within the
constitution and bylaws of the congregation or of the [S]ynod, to assume control
over the congregation or of the building.”
The court further stated that the merits of the decision to declare the congregation no longer viable
and order it to wind down its affairs was one the court could not examine by virtue of the
ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.
¶ 15 The defendants filed a motion to reconsider arguing, in part, that the court should not have
considered Bishop Roth’s deposition because the deposition was taken in Peoria instead of
Kankakee County and the defendants were not present. The court denied the motion.
¶ 16 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 17 On appeal, the defendants primarily argue the court erred in granting the motion for
summary judgment in favor of the Synod. The defendants also argue that the court erred in
considering the deposition of Roth; the filing of a motion to reconsider should have stayed
enforcement of the judgment; they should have been given the opportunity to exhaust all
administrative remedies before the Synod brought litigation; and the ELCA, not the Synod, was
the proper party to bring this litigation.
6
¶ 18 By filing cross-motions for summary judgment, the parties agreed that only a question of
law existed that the court could decide based on the record. Pielet v. Pielet, 2012 IL 112064, ¶ 28.
We review the court’s decision on cross-motions for summary judgment de novo. Id. ¶ 30. We
review the judgment, not the reasoning, of the circuit court, and we may affirm on any grounds in
the record. Leonardi v. Loyola University of Chicago, 168 Ill. 2d 83, 97 (1995).
¶ 19 The role of courts in resolving church property disputes is narrowly circumscribed by the
first amendment’s guarantee that the right to the free exercise of religion will not be abridged. St.
Mark Coptic Orthodox Church v. Tanios, 213 Ill. App. 3d 700, 713 (1991). Courts, thus, have no
authority to resolve disputes that concern matters of church doctrine, practice, polity, or
administration. Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the United States of America & Canada v.
Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 710 (1976). Likewise, where hierarchical religious organizations have
established their own rules, regulations, and tribunals for adjudicating their own disputes
concerning the government and direction of subordinate bodies, courts are required to defer to
such decisions. Id. at 724-25. Where the church dispute is not doctrinal, deference to the religious
authority is not required. Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 602 (1979). Courts in such instances have
generally applied the “neutral principles of law” approach. Id. at 602-03. “Under the neutral-
principles approach, the court objectively examines pertinent church charters, constitutions and
bylaws, deeds, State statutes, and other evidence and resolves the matter the same as it would a
secular dispute.” Tanios, 213 Ill. App. 3d at 714. However, the neutral principles of law approach
does not always allow a court to resolve a dispute. Id. “[I]f examination and interpretation of the
documents pertinent to the dispute necessarily would entail deciding an issue of religious doctrine
or church law, then the court must defer to the resolution of the doctrinal issue by the authoritative
ecclesiastical body.” Id. at 714-15.
7
¶ 20 Here, the Trinity Lutheran Church was a member of the hierarchical church organization
of the ELCA. In the hierarchy, Trinity Lutheran was a member of the Synod. The Synod was one
of the judicatories that made up the full ELCA. Thus, Trinity Lutheran answered to the Synod in
the church hierarchy. Synod’s constitution provided:
“If any congregation of this synod has disbanded, or if the members of a
congregation agree that it is no longer possible for it to function as such, or if it is
the opinion of the Synod Council that membership of a congregation has become
so scattered or so diminished in numbers as to make it impractical for such a
congregation to fulfill the purposes for which it was organized or that it is necessary
for this synod to protect the congregation’s property from waste and deterioration,
the Synod Council, itself or through trustees appointed by it, may take charge and
control of the property of the congregation to hold, manage, and convey the same
on behalf of this synod. The congregation shall have the right to appeal the decision
of the Synod Assembly.”
The constitution of the Trinity Lutheran Church provided that “if the congregation ceases to exist,
title to undisposed property shall pass to the [Synod].” Pursuant to both constitutions, the Synod
Council determined that Trinity Lutheran was no longer viable and, thus, ceased to exist. Such a
decision was within the province of the Synod Council and is an ecclesiastical matter involving
church doctrine, polity, and practice. Therefore, we will defer to such a finding. Looking at the
plain language of both constitutions, once the Synod Council made such a finding, title to the
property reverted to the Synod. The court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of
the Synod.
8
¶ 21 We find support for this decision in Clay v. Illinois District Counsel of Assemblies of God
Church, 275 Ill. App. 3d 971 (1995). In Clay, the Grafton Assemblies of God Church was a
member of the hierarchical organization of the Illinois District Counsel of Assembles of God
Church. Id. at 973. The bylaws of the Grafton Assembly stated that if it “cease[d] to function as
an Assemblies of God Church” its property would revert to the Illinois District Council. Id. at 973-
74. When the Grafton Assembly’s membership dropped to eight, the Illinois District Council voted
to close the church and sell its property. Id. at 974-75. The remaining members of the church
brought suit, seeking to void the transfer of the real estate. Id. at 975. The circuit court granted the
Illinois District Council’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the plain language of the
bylaws granted the Illinois District Council authority to convey the real estate. Id. The appellate
court upheld the granting of summary judgment, stating:
“[T]he reversion clause in the Grafton Assembly’s bylaws did not condition
reversion of its property to the Illinois District Council on some objectively
ascertainable fact, such as whether the Illinois District Council had decertified the
Grafton Assembly for affiliation with the Illinois District Council. Instead, the
reversion of the Grafton Assembly’s property was conditioned on the fact the
Grafton Assembly had ‘cease[d] to function as an Assemblies of God Church.’ It
is not the province of a civil court to decide whether plaintiffs are still functioning
as a church, or whether they are still functioning as an Assemblies of God Church.”
Id. at 979.
Thus, the court deferred to the Illinois District Council’s decision on that issue. Id. The court then
looked at the plain language of the bylaws and found that, because the Grafton Assembly had
9
ceased to function as an Assemblies of God Church, title passed to the Illinois District Council.
Id.¶ 22 In coming to this conclusion, we reject the defendants’ argument that the neutral principles
of law analysis requires us to solely look at the deed and not consider any of the church doctrine.
As stated above (supra ¶ 19), even where applying the neutral principles of law analysis, the law
requires the court to look at the church doctrine and not decide any ecclesiastical issue, as we
would have to do here. Moreover, we note that, while the defendants reference the deed many
times in their briefs, the deed is not included in the record on appeal. It is the appellant’s burden
to provide a sufficient record on appeal. Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 391-92 (1984).
¶ 23 The defendants next raise a number of meritless arguments, which we will consider in turn.
First, the defendants argue that the court should not have considered the deposition of Bishop Roth
because it was taken in Peoria instead of Kankakee County. The defendants raised this argument
for the first time in the motion to reconsider. Therefore, it has been forfeited. Evanston Insurance
Co. v. Riseborough, 2014 IL 114271, ¶ 36; Sewickley, LLC v. Chicago Title Land Trust Co., 2012
IL App (1st) 112977, ¶¶ 36-37 (“To allow defendants to raise objections *** for the first time in a
motion for rehearing and reconsideration would require this court to ignore long-standing
precedent on how issues are litigated both in the circuit court and before this court.”). The
defendants could have objected to the inclusion of such evidence in its response to the motion for
summary judgment or at the hearing but failed to do so.
¶ 24 Second, the defendants argue that a judgment deed was given before the defendants filed
their motion to reconsider and it “was error for the court to enforce its judgment without giving
defendants time to ask the court to reconsider its judgment.” The defendants do not cite any
10
caselaw for this proposition. We cannot see how the defendants were harmed by such where they
did file a motion to reconsider.
¶ 25 Third, the defendants argue that the Synod had to give the defendants the opportunity to
exhaust administrative remedies by appealing to the ELCA before it brought a case in court. While
the defendants raised this argument in their initial response to the Synod’s complaint, they did not
raise it again in the trial court, either in their response to the motion for summary judgment, at the
hearing, or in the motion to reconsider. The defendant has, therefore, forfeited this issue. Wilbourn
v. Cavalenes, 398 Ill. App. 3d 837, 855 (2010). Even accepting this forfeiture, the defendants made
no effort to appeal the finding of the Synod Council. The Synod could not be expected to wait
indefinitely for the defendants to appeal before seeking to enforce its judgment.
¶ 26 Lastly, the defendants argue that the ELCA, not the Synod, should have brought the
complaint because, according to the defendants, courts must “defer to the resolution of issues of
religious doctrine and practice to the highest court of the hierarchical church organization.”
(Emphasis in original.) Again, the defendants have forfeited this argument by not raising it in the
circuit court. Bank of New York Mellon v. Rogers, 2016 IL App (2d) 150712, ¶ 32. Nonetheless,
we note that the defendants’ argument is based on a misreading of the law. The law requires us to
give deference “whenever the questions of discipline, or of faith, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or
law have been decided by the highest of these church judicatories to which the matter has been
carried.” (Emphasis added.) Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679, 727 (1871). As the defendants did not
appeal to the ELCA, the Synod was the highest judicatory to which the matter was carried.
¶ 27 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 28 The judgment of the circuit court of Kankakee County is affirmed.
¶ 29 Affirmed.
11