USVI Public Records

Document text

— Li IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX: KINGSHILL SUNNY ISLE CHURCH OF CHRIST, Plaintiff, CIVIL NO. 175/1985 Ve MURIEL FRANCIS, ACTION TO ABATE A NUISANCE TRESPASS & DAMAGES Defendant. EDGAR D. ROSS, ESQUIRE P.O. Box 1548 Frederiksted, St. Croix 00840 U.S. Virgin Islands (809) 772-4444 (Attorney for Plaintiff) P.O. G. LUZ A. JAMES, ESQUIRE Box 3279 Christiansted, St. Croix U.S. Virgin Islands 00820 (809) 778-8802 (Attorney for Defendant) PETERSEN, Judge MEMORANDUM OPINION October 9%, 1985 This matter is before this Court after a bench trial on the counterclaim of defendant Muriel Francis for damages. For the following reasons the counterclaim must be dismissed. FACTS On January 1985, plaintiff, the Sunny Isle Church of Christ (hereinafter referred to as the "Church") sent defendant Muriel Francis a letter advising defendant that SUNNY ISLE CHURCH OF CHRIST v. MURIEL FRANCIS CIVIL NO. 175/1985 ACTION TO ABATE A NUISANCE, TRESPASS & DAMAGES her fellowship in the church had been withdrawn, effective January 9, 1985, The letter alleged that the reason for disfellowship was the disorderly conduct of the defendant. Specifically cited were two alleged "disruptive and disorderly" outbursts by defendant on December 19, 1984 and January 9, 1985. After continued confrontations and disagreements between plaintiff's employees, Evangelist Stentson Carpenter and Associate Evangelist Richard Lewis, and defendant Francis, plaintiff brought a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent defendant from trespassing on its property and disrupting its worship services. This motion was denied May 22, 1985. Attempts at reconciliation having failed, plaintiff renewed its motion for a preliminary injunction, which motion was granted by this Court on September 6, 1985. Defendant Francis filed a counterclaim for damages in the sum of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars for plaintiff's use of her building and for slanderous remarks made against her by plaintiff's employees. ISSUES This Court must determine (1) whether plaintiff Church in its disfellowship of defendant Francis followed its own customary procedure; (2) whether the Church is responsible for the remarks made about defendant by its employee, SUNNY ISLE CHURCH OF CHRIST v. MURIEL FRANCIS CIVIL NO. 175/1985 ACTION TO ABATE A NUISANCE, TRESPASS & DAMAGES Associate Evangelist Richard Lewis and (3) whether an expelled member of a religious society can recover contributions made prior to that member's expulsion. DISCUSSION I. Courts, with good cause, have always been hesitant to review the propriety of a church's expulsion procedures where no property or civil right is involved. This reluctance is exemplified by the holding of Mount Olive Primitive Baptist Church et. al. v. Patrick et. al., 42 So.2d 617 (Ala. 1949) at 619 which states: We think the courts would be treading on most dangerous ground and invading a sanctuary not set apart for its jurisdic- tion if it should permit dissident minorities believing themselves to have been improperly excluded because of the procedure by which they are exscinded, to invoke its power to determine such a factional dispute. Here, aS in Mount Olive Church v. Patrick, supra, the matters complained of are not of the nature which allows court intervention. The evidence supports a finding that plaintiff followed its prescribed expulsion policy. Testimony indicates that the Sunny Isle Church of Christ has a congregational form of government and that a majority of its members constitute SUNNY ISLE CHURCH OF CHRIST v. MURIEL FRANCIS CIVIL NO. 175/1985 ACTION TO ABATE A NUISANCE, TRESPASS & DAMAGES the highest tribunal with jurisdiction to judge differences between its members. The evidence further indicates that members of the Church congregation met and agreed to the disfellowship of defendant Francis. The Church, through its Male-only governing organization, authorized a notice of its decision to be sent to the defendant by letter and vested authority in Evangelist Carpenter to file a court action against defendant at the congregation's expense. The evidence clearly indicates that plaintiff has followed the dictates of its doctrine. Since there has been no evidence presented to indicate that a property or civil right is involved, this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the Church's decision. See, Stewart et. al v. Jarriel et. al., 59 S.E.2d 368 (Ga. 1950), 20 ALR2d 457, and Erickson v. Gospel Foundation of California, 275 P.2d 474. (Calif. 1954), which reaffirm the courts' reluctance to interfere with the disciplinary procedures of religious bodies; “and it has been commonly held that the expulsion of a member by a proper tribunal of such an association will not be reviewed where no property right is involved." Id at 477. II. Defendant Francis contends that she is entitled to recover for the defamatory remarks of the Church's employee, SUNNY ISLE CHURCH OF CHRIST v. MURIEL FRANCIS CIVIL NO. 175/1985 ACTION TO ABATE A NUISANCE, TRESPASS & DAMAGES Associate Evangelist Lewis. The Restatement (Second) of Torts §559 (1977) defines a defamatory communication as any communication which "tends so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him". The evidence indicates that during morning services on the morning of March 11, 1985, Evangelist Lewis, announced the scheduling of an additional special sermon to discuss “something important" for that evening. Defendant Francis is correct in her assertion that Evangelist Lewis' statements, contained in his above mentioned special sermon, in which he repeatedly called defendant a gossiper, a busy body, a troublemaker and a backbitter, fall under the definition of defamatory communication set forth above. This Court is quite conscious of the need to balance the right of an individual to protect his or her reputation against the right of a religious organization to be free to Manage its affairs without a civil court's scrutiny or interference. Ordinarily the common interest of church members in church affairs is sufficient to give rise to a qualified privilege to communications between members concerning said matters, including the expulsion of one of its members. See, Restatement of Torts (Second) §596 comment e. When, however there is ample evidence, as in the instant case, SUNNY ISLE CHURCH OF CHRIST v. MURIEL FRANCIS CIVIL NO. 175/1985 ACTION TO ABATE A NUISANCE, TRESPASS & DAMAGES to support a motive other than effectuating church discipline or when expulsion proceedings are used as a pretext to oust those members who disagree with the church leadership, such an abuse negates the privilege. Id. §603. See also, Brewer et. al v. Second Baptist Church of Los Angeles et. al., 32 Cal.2d 791, 197 P.2d 713 (1948). The evidence shows that prior to the disagreements between parties which give rise to this action, defendant was a contributing member of plaintiff Church for over sixteen years. Defendant Francis was accused of causing strife within the church only after adamantly expressing her opposition to the church leadership's plans to use church facilities for an exercise class. This sequence of events suggests an ulterior motive on the part of plaintiff's employees, as exhibited by the harsh tenor of Associate Evangelist Lewis' remarks during disciplinary procedures against defendant. Moreover, there is sufficient evidence to show that Lewis was acting in his capacity as a paid evangelist of the Church. Defendant Francis, however, has failed to _ show adequate proof of special harm. Restatement (Second) of Torts §575 comment b states that "loss of reputation alone is not enough to make the defamer liable ... unless it is reflected in some kind of economic or pecuniary loss. So too, lowered social standing and its purely social consequences are not SUNNY ISLE CHURCH OF CHRIST v. MURIEL FRANCIS CIVIL NO. 175/1985 ACTION TO ABATE A NUISANCE, TRESPASS & DAMAGES sufficient," emphasis added. Emotional distress in and of itself is not special harm; once there is proof of special harm, one can recover for any resulting emotional distress and/or bodily harm. Id at 575 comment c. The defendant has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence any special harm. Therefore, defendant Francis may not recover in damages for the slanderous conduct of Lewis IIT. Defendant Francis further asserts that she is entitled to compensation for her contributions to the church. It is an established principal of law that an expelled church member by virtue of his expulsion maintains no property right in the church. Reinke v. German Evangelical Lutheran Trinity Church, 17 S.D.262, 96 N.W.90 (S.D. 1903), 20 ALR2a 499. Stewart v. Jarriel, supra at 370, states that ...-when a person becomes a member of a church, he does so upon the condition of submission to its ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and however much he may be dissatisfied with the exercise of that jurisdiction, he has no right to invoke the supervisory power of a civil court so long as none of his civil rights are involved... An expelled member of a church has no interest in the church property,... SUNNY ISLE CHURCH OF CHRIST v. MURIEL FRANCIS CIVIL NO. 175/1985 ACTION TO ABATE A NUISANCE, TRESPASS & DAMAGES This Court has already determined that the Church's expulsion of defendant is valid based on the dictates of the Church's by-laws. It therefore follows that defendant Francis has no claim to church property which includes any contributions made by her prior to her disfellowship. Upon stipulation of both parties the rental monies which remain due defendant Francis for the use of her home for worship services amount to the sum of one hundred ($100.00) dollars. For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's counterclaim must be dismissed. an te lee. EILEEN R. PETERSEN Judge