CEDAR GROVE BAPTIST CHURCH VS. JEROME BRANHAM (C-000217-16, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-1923-17T1
CEDAR GROVE BAPTIST
CHURCH,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JEROME BRANHAM,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________
Submitted December 18, 2018 – Decided January 2, 2019
Before Judges Fisher and Hoffman.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Essex County, Docket No. C-
000217-16.
Coffy Law, LLC, attorneys for appellant (Emmanuel
Coffy and Ralph Gerstein, on the brief).
Celeste Dudley-Smith, attorney for respondent.
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Cedar Grove Primitive Baptist Church (the church) – a member
of the Northeastern Primitive Baptist Association (the association) –
commenced this General Equity action, alleging defendant Jerome Branham –
the church's pastor – first attempted to withdraw the church from the association
without proper authorization and later unlawfully locked out the church's acting
pastor, officers, and members, from the church's property on Mercer Street in
Newark. The church sought an injunction barring Branham from church
property and other related relief.
After a two-day bench trial, Judge Thomas M. Moore rendered fact
findings and concluded the church was entitled to the relief sought. Branham
appeals, arguing:
I. [THE CHURCH] HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH
THAT IT HAS ANY DULY ENACTED BY-LAWS
THAT GOVERN THE RIGHT OF A MEMBER
CHURCH TO WITHDRAW FROM THE ASSOCI-
ATION.
II. EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE "ASSOCIATION
GOVERNMENT" WAS A VALIDLY ENACTED BY-
LAW, IT DOES NOT REQUIRE DEFENDANT TO
OBTAIN A VOTE OF THE MEMBER OR MEMBERS
BEFORE WITHDRAWING FROM THE ASSOCI-
ATION.
III. EVEN ASSUMING THAT [THE CHURCH'S]
WITHDRAWAL FROM THE ASSOCIATION CON-
STITUTED A BREACH OF THE AGREEMENT, THE
COURT IMPOSED REMEDIES WHICH ARE NOT
CALLED FOR EITHER BY THE AGREEMENT OR
NEW JERSEY LAW.
A-1923-17T1
2
IV. IF THIS COURT UPHOLDS THE [TRIAL]
COURT DECISION TO ALLOW THE REMOVAL OF
[BRANHAM] AS MINISTER AND TO ALLOW THE
ASSOCIATION TO TAKE OVER THE PROPERTY
OF THE . . . CHURCH, THEN [BRANHAM] IS
ENTITLED TO RECOVER IN QUANTUM MERUIT
FOR REPAIRS, MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVE-
MENTS TO THE CHURCH.
We find insufficient merit in these arguments to warrant discussion in a written
opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E), and affirm substantially for the reasons expressed
in Judge Moore's thoughtful and well-reasoned oral decision. We add only a
few brief comments.
Judge Moore observed that, contrary to Branham's assertion, the church
had been an association member from the association's inception in 1927 and
without interruption until Branham told church elder and moderator, Alfonso
Tolliver, in July 2015, that he was "disassociating" from the association and
"taking the church with him." Tolliver objected and told Branham his actions
were out of order and contrary to association regulations. In September 2015,
the association met and voted to terminate Branham's leadership position with
the church.
Judge Moore correctly recognized that the case presented a "primary
question": whether Branham was authorized to withdraw the church from the
association. The evidence, the judge concluded, compelled "a resounding no"
A-1923-17T1
3
to that question. In explaining, the judge described the manner in which the
church might disassociate and, by comparison, concluded proper procedure had
not been followed. The judge concluded – on considering the association
regulations, the testimony he found credible, and the corroboration provided by
Branham's concealment of his actions for eight months, among other things –
that Branham lacked the authority to withdraw the church from the association,
and that Branham "knew that he had absolutely no right to do so in the manner
he did" but "did it anyway." Judge Moore's findings were well-supported by the
credible evidence and command our deference. See Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v.
Inv'rs. Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974).
We lastly express our agreement with Judge Moore that his ability to
resolve the issues posed by this lawsuit was unimpeded by constitutional
principles that recognize a wall between church and state. The decision did not
require the court's determination of disputes about religious doctrine or
ecclesiastical policy, see McKelvey v. Pierce, 173 N.J. 26 (2002); Elmora
Hebrew Ctr., Inc. v. Fishman, 125 N.J. 404, 413 (1991), only whether
established procedures were followed. Both parties agree their disputes were
constitutionally justiciable.
Affirmed.
A-1923-17T1
4