Immanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Fromm

Citations: 116 N.W.2d 766; 367 Mich. 575; 1962 Mich. LEXIS 447Docket: Docket 53, Calendar 48,782

Court: Michigan Supreme Court; September 10, 1962; Michigan; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The case Immanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Fromm addresses the dispute over the possession and use of property belonging to Immanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church in Saginaw, Michigan. A complaint was filed on June 22, 1959, by six individuals representing both themselves and the church, seeking possession of church property, injunctive relief, and monetary damages against ten defendants, including eight elected church officers, Pastor Daniel Mathes, and Dr. Norman A. Mentor, president of the Michigan District of the American Lutheran Church.

The plaintiffs claim that the church is a religious corporation established under Michigan law and has adhered to the discipline of the German Evangelical Synod of North America, subsequently joining the Evangelical and Reformed Church in 1934. They assert their loyalty to this governance and allege that the defendants conspired to withdraw the church from the Evangelical and Reformed Church and affiliate with the American Lutheran Church without proper authorization or notice to relevant church authorities. 

The plaintiffs also highlight a resolution from the Michigan-Indiana Synod on May 7, 1958, affirming that only members loyal to the Evangelical and Reformed Church retain rights to the church’s assets. They contend that since early 1958, the defendants have excluded them from the church property, and they requested a temporary injunction, which was denied by the lower court.

In response, the defendants argue that the church operates according to its constitution and bylaws and that the plaintiffs acted unlawfully in initiating the suit without authorization from the church’s officers. The defendants acknowledge the church's initial adherence to the discipline of the German Evangelical Synod but maintain that the current leadership has the rightful authority.

Defendants assert that the incorporators did not establish the church as a 'Reformed Church' and that it has not been governed by the Evangelical and Reformed Church's rules. They further claim the church was not founded as a mission church, is not affiliated with the American Lutheran Church, and that no proper application for synod withdrawal was made. Defendants maintain they have lawful control over the church's property and deny any illegal seizure. They assert their fidelity to church doctrine, claiming no deviations have occurred since April 26, 1959, and that the doctrine remains consistent with that of the German Evangelical Synod of North America. Defendants also state that plaintiffs are not barred from church property and are welcome to participate in services and functions.

Following a trial, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, determining that Immanuel Church operates under a representative form of government and is subject to the Evangelical and Reformed Church's governance. The court found that the plaintiff corporation has rightful possession of the church's property and directed the defendants to cease misrepresenting themselves as legal officers and to return all church property and records.

Defendants appealed the trial court's decree, raising three primary questions: whether their motion to dismiss should have been granted based on the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust grievance procedures, the civil court's authority regarding constitutional rights of worship, and the legitimacy of the plaintiff corporation's participation in the suit. Additionally, they questioned whether the congregation forfeited its property rights by amending its constitution to terminate synod membership and whether plaintiffs are entitled to control the property affiliated with the United Church of Christ. The appellate court found the trial judge's findings of fact well-supported and deemed his legal application satisfactory, adopting his opinion as the Court's own.

The case revolves around the constitutional principle that prohibits Congress from establishing a religion or interfering with religious practices. The court emphasizes that individuals have the right to withdraw from the plaintiff church and worship freely, but the central issue pertains to the ownership of the church's tangible property, not religious beliefs. 

The Immanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church of Saginaw was established and incorporated in 1924 under Michigan law, with its members adhering to the German Evangelical Synod of North America’s guidelines. This Synod, which governed the church, merged in 1934 with the Reformed Church to form the Evangelical and Reformed Church, under which the Immanuel Lutheran Church continued until the trial. 

The trial lasted five weeks, with extensive testimony presented; however, much of it was deemed irrelevant to the case's resolution. The church's historical roots trace back to Russian émigrés in the 18th century, who formed a church in the Volga valley and later migrated to the United States, leading to the establishment of the Immanuel Lutheran Church in Saginaw. The church thrived under the governance of both the German Evangelical Synod and the Evangelical and Reformed Church until approximately 1958, when Rev. Eichhorn, its pastor since its inception, retired.

The church body operated under the governance and practices of two synods during the specified period. The Evangelical and Reformed Church includes a general synod, 33 geographical intermediate synods, and approximately 2,700 congregations with 800,000 members, specifically involving the Michigan-Indiana Synod here. Congregations elect delegates to the intermediate synod, which in turn elects representatives to the general synod, illustrating a presbyterian form of governance akin to a representative state government.

Following Rev. Eichhorn's resignation, a dispute arose regarding the appointment of a new minister, exacerbated by a proposed merger with other churches. A majority of Immanuel Lutheran Church members voted to invite a minister from a different denomination, leading to meetings where representatives were elected to seek permission from the synod to withdraw from the Evangelical and Reformed Church. A minority opposed this action. Despite attempts, the synod denied the request for withdrawal.

On November 24, 1957, a vote was held on severing ties with the Evangelical and Reformed Church to seek affiliation with a Lutheran synod, which passed with a majority. At the Michigan-Indiana Synod's annual conference on May 5, 1959, a resolution was adopted denying the Immanuel Church's request to withdraw from the Evangelical and Reformed Church, confirming the synod's stance on the matter.

The synod adopted a resolution incorporated into the official minutes, following an unsuccessful attempt by the majority to withdraw the congregation from the Evangelical and Reformed Church. The majority subsequently called a pastor from outside the Evangelical and Reformed Church and operated under the belief that the church had a congregational form of governance. Immanuel Lutheran Church and other members who wished to remain under Evangelical and Reformed control initiated a lawsuit. The Michigan-Indiana Synod president convened a meeting for those wanting to stay, leading to the election of officers and authorization for litigation. In contrast, the majority claimed a pastor from another denomination and took control of church property, rejecting the Evangelical and Reformed Synod's authority and seeking a new synod affiliation.

The defendants argue that the plaintiff church operates as a congregational entity, claiming it never ratified the merger between the German Evangelical Synod of North America and the Evangelical and Reformed Church. However, the majority's argument is flawed; the church had a presbyterian structure at the merger and lacked authority to ratify it. Historical records show consistent operations under the Evangelical and Reformed Church for over 22 years, including financial contributions and governance recognition. The church's constitution states that all property remains with the congregation, and in the event of division, the Evangelical Synod's judgment on possession is final.

A past dispute over property use was resolved by the synod, indicating reliance on synod authority. The defendants attempted to amend the local constitution to change its governance structure and remove existing articles mandating membership in the Evangelical Synod. This attempt parallels the case of Borgman v. Bultema, where a majority sought to alter the church’s governance form; the court deemed such amendments void, affirming the presbyterial nature of the church.

In Fuchs v. Meisel, the court affirmed the rights of church members to withdraw from their religious organization but clarified that they cannot take or transfer church property dedicated to worship for their own purposes. Attempts to amend the church's constitution to remove property from the governing body's control are deemed void. The court emphasized that it will not assess the prudence of decisions made by church governing bodies, focusing instead on whether they had jurisdiction over the issues at hand. It noted that a church cannot alter its religious creed or property trust without unanimous member approval. While defendants are free to join another church, they cannot take church property with them, as this would violate the trust established by the original founders. The court found that awarding monetary damages for the defendants' illegal occupancy of church property would be speculative, thus opting not to grant such damages. An injunction will be issued to restrain the defendants, and the plaintiffs are awarded costs. The trial court's decree is affirmed.