Synod of Southern California and Hawaii v. Kim

Filed 8/19/08 Synod of Southern California and Hawaii v. Kim CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Lee Smalley Edmon, Judge. Affirmed.

Penner, Bradley & Buettner, Peter Sean Bradley and Randall M. Penner for Defendants and Appellants.

Law Offices of George S. Burns and George S. Burns for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

_____________________

INTRODUCTION

The main issue in this appeal concerns how to resolve a dispute between a national denomination and an affiliated local church about ownership and control of property of the local church, Korean Hope Christian Church (Hope Church). This in turn involves the meaning of Corporations Code section 9142[1] and whether its provisions authorize the imposition of a trust on local church property in favor of the national denomination. Defendants, the former pastor and former elders and members of the Hope Church, appeal a judgment imposing a trust on that churchs real property in favor of the national denominational church, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (PCUSA), quieting title in PCUSA, and awarding injunctive relief. We conclude that, applying neutral principles of law to this property dispute, substantial evidence supports the judgment. Moreover, section 9142, subdivision (c)(2) applies to this case as a neutral principle of law, and the trial court properly found that a trust was impressed on the assets of Hope Church in favor of PCUSA. We further find that the trial court properly deferred to the determination of the ecclesiastical body, PCUSA and its Hanmi Presbytery and Hope Administrative Commission, of who constituted the true church of Hope Church. Finally, we find that defendants have not shown that the proceedings of the Hope Administration Commission denied them due process. We affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL and PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 7, 2004, plaintiffs Synod of Southern California and Hawaii, Presbytery of Hanmi, Hope Church, a California non-profit religious corporation, and Mark Hong filed a complaint against Kyung Suh Kim (Rev. Kim) and other defendants who were elders and members of Hope Church. Although the complaint alleged 10 causes of action, only the first cause of action to enforce an express trust, the third cause of action to enforce the terms of a constructive trust, and the fifth cause of action to quiet title went to trial. The trial court entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against Rev. Kim and the other defendants, who appeal.

1. The PCUSA, its Organizational Hierarchy, and its Constitution:

PCUSA , the national religious denomination, was formed in 1983, when the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America and the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America merged. The General Assembly is its highest governing body. PCUSA has 16 regional synods, one of which is plaintiff Synod of Southern California and Hawaii (Synod). Within each synod are presbyteries; the Synod has 8 presbyteries, one of which is Hanmi Presbytery, a non-geographic, Korean-language presbytery organized to assist the Presbyterian Church in its ministry to Korean immigrants. Below a presbytery are local church sessions, which are composed of elected elders who govern a local congregation as the equivalent of a board of directors. The session, not a local church pastor, has responsibility to carry out instructions from the presbytery. The session, ministers, and church elders are required to follow the PCUSA Constitution, and PCUSA member churches are required to accept the PCUSA Constitution as their governing instrument.

PCUSA has a written constitution with two parts, a Book of Confessions (collecting doctrinal confessions of the church) and a Book of Order. The Book of Order has three parts, the Form of Government, the Directory for Worship, and the Rules of Discipline. Chapter 8 of the Book of Order contains provisions concerning the property of a local church, and provides that all property of the local church is held in trust for the PCUSA denomination.[2] Upon becoming a member of PCUSA, a churchs property is transferred into trust for PCUSA. A local congregation may incorporate and hold property, and normally the name of the local congregation is on the deed to its property, as permitted by Book of Order section G-7.0402. As stated, the Book of Order establishes a trust relationship for a local churchs property and states that the trustee is the session (or trustees accountable to the session) of the local congregation. Pursuant to section G-8.0201, trustees hold church property for the entire PCUSA denomination. If the session fails to carry out its responsibilities, the presbytery is the successor trustee. When a local church ceases to use church property in accordance with the PCUSA Constitution, Book of Order section G-8.0300 requires that property to be held, used, applied, transferred, or sold as provided by the presbytery. Section G-8.0500 prohibits a local church or session from encumbering, mortgaging, selling, or leasing church property without the presbyterys written permission.

Book of Order section G-8.061 states that [t]he relationship to the [PCUSA] of a particular church can be severed only by constitutional action on the part of the presbytery. (G-11.0103i) If there is a schism within the membership of a particular church and the presbytery is unable to effect a reconciliation or a division into separate churches within the [PCUSA], the presbytery shall determine if one of the factions is entitled to the property because it is identified by the presbytery as the true church within the [PCUSA]. This determination does not depend upon which faction received the majority vote within the particular church at the time of the schism.

Book of Order section G-9.0500 gives sessions, presbyteries, synods, and the General Assembly the power to appoint administrative commissions, which have defined authority over the next lower governing body. Pursuant to section G-9.0502, the appointing body defines the duties and powers given to an administrative commission when it is created. The scope of an administrative commissions powers can include receiving all power to act for the lower governing body; the administrative commission can, for example, take over and exercise the power of a local church session.

2. Rev. Kim, the Hope Church, and its Membership in PCUSA:

Rev. Kim, former pastor of Hope Church, received an undergraduate degree from Seoul National University in 1959, a Master of Divinity from Seoul Presbyterian Seminary in 1961, and a Doctorate in Ministry from Claremont University School of Theology in 1983. In 1964 the Korean Presbyterian Church at Pyong Yang Presbytery in Korea ordained Rev. Kim as a minister. After coming to the United States in 1965, Rev. Kim was an associate minister at Los Angeles United Church, an independent Presbyterian church, from 1965 to 1971. In 1971 he became pastor of Hope Church, which was not affiliated with any national denomination.

Hope Church was first established in 1971. Rev. Kim was elected the president of Hope Church in 1971; there has been no election of a church president since then. The church was registered with the State of California in 1973. Originally based in Hollywood, the Hope Church is now located in Cerritos. Although the congregation has a meeting in January of each year, Rev. Kim had no minutes of those meetings and no corporate resolutions before 2003. Rev. Kim testified that the session gave him absolute authority to act for the benefit of Hope Church. On July 20, 2003, the Board of Trustees of the Hope Church by resolution delegated all its powers to Rev. Kim, at his discretion, to decide all matters of the church.

The Hope Church Articles of Incorporation filed in 1973 stated that By-Laws would set forth the number and qualifications of corporation members, different classes of members, members property, voting, and other rights and privileges, and members liabilities to dues and assessments and the method of collecting them. Although a BY-LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS document was produced at trial, it was unsigned. Dong Chul Cho was a member of the Hope Church since 1993, was very active in the church, and became a member of the Session in 1999. When Cho joined the church, Rev. Kim told him the church belonged to him, stating that just as a company belongs to its president, the pastor owns the church. During a dispute about election of church elders in 1994, Cho asked to see the by-laws for Hope Church, but Elder Byung Kwan Min told him there was no set of by-laws. Cho never saw written minutes of session meetings when he was a session member from 1999 to 2003.

3. Real Property of Hope Church:

The original grant deed of the Cerritos real property at issue to Hope Church was dated May 24, 1987. By a grant deed dated March 5, 1990, Hope Church granted the real property to Rev. Kim and his wife as joint tenants. Rev. Kim signed the grant deed as President of the Hope Church. Two years later he learned that the County levied property tax of $20,000 to $30,000 because the church property, having been transferred to individuals, no longer qualified for a tax exemption. Rev. Kim then caused the real property to be transferred back to Hope Church by a grant deed of October 27, 1992. For the years the property was in his name, Rev. Kim caused the church to pay property taxes of $10,632.99 for 1990, and also caused the church to pay property taxes for 1991 and 1992. Hope Church acquired an additional adjacent property on May 1, 1996.

4. Hope Church Joins PCUSA:

Dong Chul Cho testified that after he joined Hope Church, he heard many rumors from other church members about Rev. Kim, about the difficulty of finding a youth pastor, and that there were no rules applied to any church elections. In early 1993, 40 people from the Korean Independent Presbyterian Church (KIPC) joined Hope Church. KIPC was a PCUSA church. Cho and other church members heard about how PCUSA handled church elections, concluded that PCUSA church elections were valid, and wanted Hope Church to join PCUSA. Cho also heard discussions that the PCUSA had a constitution and that PCUSA members were required to abide by its rules. In the months before October 1995, church members frequently discussed the idea of joining PCUSA, and on many occasions discussed PCUSAs rules that member churches were required to follow. Cho and other church members concluded that joining the PCUSA would benefit the Hope Church. Cho talked with other church members to the effect that when a church joins PCUSA, its property is subject to PCUSAs control and supervision. Members were concerned that because it was possible for Rev. Kim to place church property in his name, it was necessary to join PCUSA to obtain the protection of PCUSA rules. According to Cho, everyone liked the idea of joining PCUSA, and there were discussions about how PCUSA rules would be applied to church elections and discussions of how church property would be treated if the church joined PCUSA. Cho heard other members state that once the church joined PCUSA, church property would belong to PCUSA so Rev. Kim would no longer attempt to own church property and could not sell it without PCUSAs permission. Church members who had come from KIPC knew about the PCUSA property rules. Cho testified that the other congregants unanimously agreed that they wanted PCUSA to own Hope Church. A church member who came from the KIPC told how the KIPC pastor tried to secede from PCUSA with church property, but PCUSA rules prevented that pastor from carrying out his plan.

Until 1995, the Hope Church was independent and not affiliated with any national denomination. In 1995, Rev. Kim submitted an application for Hope Church to join Hanmi Presbytery, Synod of Southern California and Hawaii, and PCUSA. In October 1995, Hope Church joined PCUSA. Also in 1995 Rev. Kim applied for a ministers admission to the Hanmi Presbytery. Hanmi Presbytery received Rev. Kim as a minister on September 5, 1996.

Rev. Kim testified that he proposed to the Hope Church Session that the church join PCUSA. When the church applied to join Hanmi Presbytery, Rev. Kim was aware that PCUSA had a Constitution and a Book of Order whose rules governed PCUSA member churches. He also testified that he knew that Hope Church would become subject to the PCUSA Constitution, and he intended that the church would abide by and be guided by the PCUSA Constitution. Later, on June 15, 2000, Rev. Kim signed a Covenant Between Active Members and Elders of Hanmi Presbytery and The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) stating that he promised that he would abide and be guided by the Constitution of the PC(U.S.A.).

5. As Moderator of Hanmi Presbytery, Rev. Kim Relies on the Book of Order and Its Trust Clause in Matters Involving Local Church Property:

Margaret Wentz, Corporate Secretary for the Synod, testified that a moderator is the most senior office of Hanmi Presbytery, acts as chief presiding officer, has the power of appointment, and serves on other important committees. Rev. Kim was interim moderator of Hanmi Presbytery in 1999 and 2000.

During this period Rev. Kim abided by and relied on the Book of Order, and as moderator acted to enforce its provisions in several proceedings. In March and May of 2000, Rev. Kim presided over meetings in which the Hanmi Presbytery created an administrative commission for the Young Eun Presbyterian Church to address a pastors attempt to sell church property without authority and to address an improperly called congregation meeting. In another matter involving the Orange County Presbyterian Church, a dispute had arisen between church elders, who believed that church funds were held in a restricted bank account as a building fund to acquire a church property; the churchs pastor, however, had used that money from that account as operating funds. On April 20, 1999, on behalf of Hanmi Presbytery, Rev. Kim sent written instructions to the California Korean Bank in Garden Grove to freeze the $60,000 account of Orange County Presbyterian Church and stating that the funds belonged to the Hanmi Presbytery. On May 17, 1999, Rev. Kim participated in a Hanmi Presbytery Administration Commission decision to authorize a civil suit to prevent the pastor of Orange County Korean Presbyterian Church from using church building funds for operating expenses. Rev. Kim verified a complaint filed by the Synod and Hanmi Presbytery against Orange County Korean Presbyterian Church, alleging that this church was subject to the PCUSA Book of Order and to its provision that local church property was held in trust for the use and benefit of PCUSA. On behalf of the Hanmi Presbytery as moderator, Rev. Kim signed a May 20, 1999, letter requesting the cooperation of California Korea Bank to safeguard disputed church funds to permit resolution of the matter consistent with the rules governing [PCUSA].

6. During Disputes Within Hope Church and Among Its Members, Rev. Kim Again Relies on the Book of Order and Requests Intervention by Hanmi Presbytery:

In an August 5, 2001, letter to a Synod Executive, seven elders of Hope Church reported that when Rev. Kim ignored a petition from the congregation requesting that the session hold a congregational meeting, a majority of session members announced a congregational meeting. The elders letter requested that the Synod and Hanmi Presbytery intervene on the congregations behalf and provide a moderator for a congregational meeting to: (1) effectuate the retirement of Rev. Kim as pastor and establish him as Pastor Emeritus; (2) form a committee to search for the next pastor; and (3) remove Rev. Kim and two elders as authorized signers of church checks. Rev. Kim responded in letters to the Committee of Ministry Chair, with copies to Hanmi Presbytery and Synod officials. Rev. Kim notified them that the session had deleted three individuals from the Hope Church membership roll according to The Book of Order, G‑10.0302b(4). Rev. Kim testified that he requested Hanmi Presbytery to come to Hope Church and tell other church members to stop holding meetings in violation of the Book of Order. Rev. Kim made other attempts to stop Hope Church members from conducting what he considered to be an illegal congregational meeting. In a November 26, 2001, letter, Rev. Kim stated that Presbyterian churches and members should faithfully observe the Book of Order, and asked the Presbytery and Synod to show the Hope Church session how it should treat members illegal activities.

7. The Hanmi Presbytery Forms the Hope Administrative Commission to Resolve a Dispute Between Rev. Kim and Rev. Oh:

In January 2002, Bethel Presbyterian Church in Norwalk, California, and its pastor, Rev. Oh, agreed to merge with Hope Church. Rev. Oh acted as a minister at Hope Church for a period, but a dispute arose. In late 2002, Hanmi Presbytery received a complaint from Rev. Oh that he was unfairly asked to leave, and that Hope Church no longer paid his salary since he ceased to act as minister in September 2002. The Presbytery Committee on Ministry investigated Rev. Ohs complaint.

On January 3, 2003, Rev. Kim wrote an Accusation letter to the Hanmi Presbytery. It alleged that pursuant to Book of Order section D-10.0102, Rev. Oh committed a series of offenses: failing to transfer $100,000 in Bethel Presbyterian Church assets to Hope Church; falsifying Rev. Ohs personal history; making defamatory statements on a Radio Korea broadcast; and claiming to be a minister of Hope Church after he ceased to work there. Rev. Kims accusation requested referral of these allegations to an investigation committee pursuant to Book of Order section D-10.0101. Rev. Kim testified that when he wrote this letter, the Hanmi Presbytery had authority to investigate Rev. Oh, to obtain the Bethel Presbyterian Church assets, and to expel Rev. Oh from Hope Church. Under Book of Order section D-10.0102, subsection (a), Rev. Kim considered himself and Rev. Oh under PCUSA jurisdiction.

When the Presbytery Committee on Ministry investigating Rev. Ohs complaint did not receive Rev. Kims cooperation, it asked the Synod Administrative Commission to form the Hope Administrative Commission. The Hope Administrative Commission tried to mediate the dispute between Rev. Kim and Rev. Oh. When the Hope Administrative Commission was impaneled on March 23, 2003, Hope Church had not notified the Hanmi Presbytery that it had left PCUSA. When the Hope Administrative Commission interviewed Rev. Kim on May 6, 2003, Rev. Kim had not informed that Commission that he had renounced the PCUSAs jurisdiction or that Hope Church had left Hanmi Presbytery and PCUSA. From July through September 2003, Rev. Kim did not inform the Hope Administrative Commission that he had left the PCUSAs jurisdiction.

In a complaint filed on June 3, 2003, Rev. Kim and Hope Church sued Rev. Oh for breach of contract, embezzlement and/or conversion of church funds, and other causes of action. That complaint identified Hope Church as a member of [PCUSA]. Rev. Kim testified that this allegation in the complaint was true as of June 3, 2003.

The mediation continued, but as of November 23, 2003, Rev. Kim ceased to respond to the Hope Administrative Commissions requests or its offer to meet with him, and did not provide the membership, financial, and business records the Commission requested. Rev. Kim did not attend a January 18, 2004, hearing and congregational meeting convened to hear the positions of Revs. Kim and Oh. The Hope Administrative Commission eventually concluded that he had not cooperated. Rev. Kim never provided a set of Hope Church by-laws.

On December 17, 2002, Rev. Kim filed a complaint with the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod, alleging that Hanmi Presbytery violated Book of Order section G-11.0404(e) because Rev. Oh did not furnish satisfactory evidence of having been removed as a minister from the prior denomination with which he was associated, and the Hanmi Presbytery violated Book of Order section D-6.0202a by failing to correct this irregularity after receiving notice of it from Rev. Kim.

8. Rev. Kim Begins Efforts to End Hope Churchs Relationship With PCUSA:

Previously in January 2003, Rev. Kim had caused numerous Hope Church members to sign written statements approving termination of the relationship between the Hope Church and PCUSA. Rev. Kim told members who signed these termination statements that they needed to preserve and protect the Hope Church, which was more than 30 years old. Rev. Kim, however, never delivered the members termination statements, and continued to take the position that Hope Church was still within PCUSA. Hope Church members later signed declarations explaining why they had signed the termination statements, and raised new allegations about Rev. Kims unauthorized attempt to sell church property for $2.5 million.

After Rev. Kim received notice of the complaint Rev. Oh lodged with Hanmi Presbytery, in January 2003 Rev. Kim informed his congregation that the presbytery might create an administrative commission to resolve the dispute with Rev. Oh. Church members knew that such an administrative commission might cause Rev. Kim to lose control of Hope Church.

9. Hanmi Presbytery Authorizes the Hope Administrative Commission to Act as the Session of Hope Church:

On March 25, 2003, Hanmi Presbytery authorized the Hope Administrative Commission to act for and on behalf of Hope Church, including acting as that churchs session. On April 4, 2003, the Hope Administrative Commission by resolution confirmed that the prior Session of Hope Church was dismissed effective March 25, 2003, that the authority of all previous Hope Church representatives and authorized bank account signatories was revoked and ineffective, and that the Hope Administrative Commission assumed responsibilities of the Session and authorized and ratified all necessary actions to safeguard records and assets of the Hope Church for PCUSA. The Hope Administrative Commission elected a new moderator and president and a new secretary and treasurer, who became the only current officers of Hope Church.

On April 1, 2003, an attorney purporting to represent Hope Church advised officials of Hanmi Presbytery, the Synod, and PCUSA that by a unanimous vote of its board of directors and a majority of its membership, Hope Church terminated its affiliation and relationship with Hanmi Presbytery, the Synod, and PCUSA. Nonetheless in a September 30, 2003, letter to the Hope Administrative Commission and to the Synod Administrative Commission, counsel for Rev. Kim stated that Rev. Kim had not renounced jurisdiction of PCUSA. In 2003 Rev. Kim attended meetings of the Hope Administrative Commission, and did not inform that Commission that he had renounced PCUSA jurisdiction.

On April 18, 2003, Rev. Kim leased the Hope Church property to a third party without authority from the board. Rev. Kim testified that he accepted no rent checks pursuant to the lease and never intended the lessees to occupy the leased property, and that he entered into the lease to obtain an advantage in his dispute with the PCUSA. Rev. Kim also testified that he entered into a contract to sell the Hope Church parking lot for $2.5 million, and a grant deed transferring that property to the Victorville Sarang Church was recorded on June 13, 2003. The grant deed stated that the transfer of the property is a bonafide gift and grantor received nothing in return[.] Rev. Kim testified that he received nothing for the transfer of this property, and that by transferring the property to the Victorville Sarang Church he intended to put the property beyond the reach of PCUSA.

10. The Hope Administrative Commission Dissolves Rev. Kims Pastoral Relationship With Hope Church: On November 25, 2003, the Hope Administrative Commission made a preliminary decision to dissolve the pastoral relationship between Hope Church and Rev. Kim. On January 7, 2004, the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii, Presbytery of Hanmi, Hope Church, and Rev. Mark Hong (Moderator of the Hope Administrative Commission) filed the initial complaint in this action against Rev. Kim and other defendants. Before making a final determination, on January 18, 2004, the Hope Administrative Commission held a hearing and congregational meeting to hear the positions of pastors, members, and other interested persons. Although invited to attend and respond to concerns expressed at the meeting, Rev. Kim did not attend or respond. On January 27, 2004, the Hope Administrative Commission dissolved the pastoral relationship between Hope Church and Rev. Kim, effective February 1, 2004.

Judgment: After trial by the court, on June 13, 2006, the trial court entered judgment for plaintiffs and against defendants. As part of the judgment, the trial court issued a declaratory judgment finding that as of March 1995, all right, title or interest in any real or personal property held in the name of or intended for Hope Church was and continued to be held in trust for the use and benefit of PCUSA, to be used and applied as directed by the Hope Administrative Commission and Hanmi Presbytery.

Hope Corp. (Korean Hope Christian Church, a California non-profit religious corporation) was shown on legal title to real property known as 19319 and 19333 Carmenita Road, Cerritos, California. Any right, title, or interest of Hope Corp. in the property and real property of Hope Church was, and at all times since October 1995 had been, held in trust for the benefit of PCUSA. As of March 25, 2003, the disposition and management of the Hope Church property and real property were subject to the exclusive direction and disposition of the Hope Administrative Commission and Hanmi Presbytery.

The judgment also declared Hanmi Presbytery to be the fee simple owner of property and real property of Hope Church. The judgment therefore quieted title to the Hope Church property and real property in Hanmi Presbytery, and stated that no defendants had any estate, right, title, interest, or claim, either legal or equitable, in or to property or real property of the Hope Church. The judgment also awarded injunctive relief to plaintiffs, permanently enjoined defendants from interfering with the actions of Hanmi Presbytery and its Hope Administrative Commission, including without limitation acting as the session or board of directors of defendant Hope Corp., and from encumbering or attempting to encumber the Hope Church property or real property. The judgment ordered all defendants to give up possession of the Hope Church property and real property to the control of the Hope Administrative Commission.

Appeal: Rev. Kim and other defendants filed a timely notice of appeal.

ISSUES

Defendants claim on appeal that:

1. Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden in demonstrating that a trust existed in favor of PCUSA, and the trial court erred in so holding;

2. As a matter of law, Hope Church had the power to leave the PCUSA and once it had done so, the PCUSA did not have secular power over Hope Church;

3. Defendants were denied due process, as they received no right to be heard by the Hope Administrative Commission as required by the Book of Order.

DISCUSSION

1. Civil Courts Resolve Church Property Disputes by Neutral Principles of Law

The main issue in this appeal concerns how to resolve the dispute concerning ownership and control of Hope Church property. This in turn involves the question in what circumstances the civil court will enforce rules and regulations found in ecclesiastical governing instruments. It also involves the meaning of section 9142 and its effect on assets of a religious corporation. We first set forth the principles applicable to church property disputes. These principles derive from Jones v. Wolf (1979) 443 U.S. 595 and Protestant Episcopal Church v. Barker (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 599 (Barker).

The property dispute in Barker resulted from a controversy about church doctrine. Dissatisfied with how the national churchs general convention resolved this controversy, four local church congregations seceded from regional and national church bodies, but kept possession of local church property they held as local membership corporations created under the California nonprofit corporation law. The national church and the regional diocese sued the local churches to obtain title to and possession of their properties. The issue was whether local church organizations could keep church property held in their own names or whether they had to surrender it to regional and national church organizations as property held in trust for the general church. (Barker, supra, 115 Cal.App.3d at pp. 604-605.)

After first citing the rule that an owner of legal title is presumed to be the owner of full beneficial title to real property,[3]Barker analyzed three possible theories by which the general church organizations could try to rebut this presumption.

First, under the hierarchical theory, centralized church control over church property supersedes civil law disposition of such property, and the centralized churchs governing rules override state law disposition of local church property. (Barker, supra, 115 Cal.App.3d at p. 605.)

Second, under the implied trust theory, a local church accepts and holds local church property for the benefit of the entire membership of the general church with which it is affiliated. The local church holds its church property as a charitable trust to benefit the specific religious use in effect when it acquired the property. The local church is prohibited from applying the church property to a different religious use, and if it does so the property reverts to a trustee who must apply it to its original religious purpose. (Barker, supra, 115 Cal.App.3d at p. 606.)

Third, express trust theory relies on title deeds, articles of incorporation, canons and rules of the organizations concerned and statutes, to establish that a local church holds property under an express trust for the benefit of the general church membership as embodied in its regional and national organizations. (Barker, supra, 115 Cal.App.3d at p. 606.)

Barker evaluated these three theories against the constitutional principal that under the First Amendment a civil court is not allowed to adjudicate church property disputes by interpreting religious doctrine and practice and then relying on its own interpretation of doctrine to allocate control over church property. (Barker, supra, 115 Cal.App.3d at p. 612.) However, Barker held that courts charged with resolving church property disputes can use  neutral principles of law, developed for use in all property disputes,  without violating the First Amendment by establishing churches found to be entitled to the property. (Ibid.) Barker cited the United States Supreme Courts approval of the state courts use of neutral principles of law to settle church property disputes by examining title deeds, statutes, corporate charters, and constitution, rules, and regulations of the general church. (Id. at pp. 612-614, citing Jones v. Wolf, supra, 443 U.S. 595.) Because it is difficult to separate issues of control over church property from issues of church authority over doctrinal controversy, neutral principles of law promise to free a court from the necessity of inquiry into church doctrine, polity, and practice, and allow it to rely on objective, well-established concepts of trust and property law to dispose of disputed church property. (Barker, at p. 613.)

Barker concluded that California law rejected use of the hierarchical theory to resolve church property disputes, and instead adopted the neutral principles of law in its place. (Barker, supra, 115 Cal.App.3d at p. 614-615.)

Barker also concluded that difficulties associated with the use of the implied trust theory, once evaluation of theology and doctrine has been forbidden, remain insurmountable[,] and thus found that the implied trust doctrine provides no valid basis for transferring church property from the congregation in whose name the property is held to the general church. (Barker, supra, 115 Cal.App.3d at p. 620.)

By contrast, the third theory, whether an express trust in local church property existed for the benefit of the general church, could be determined by the same neutral principles of law used to resolve property disputes between secular entities. (Barker, supra, 115 Cal.App.3d at p. 621.) In determining the presence or absence of an express trust in specific church property a court will look at four general sets of facts: (1) the deeds to the property, (2) the articles of incorporation of the local church, (3) the constitution, canons, and rules of the general church, and (4) relevant state statutes, if any, governing possession and disposition of such property. These four general sets of facts are applied together, not singly, in determining whether an express trust on local church property has been created in favor of the general or denominational church. (Ibid.; Korean United Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery of the Pacific (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 480, 510, disapproved on an unrelated ground, Moreheart v. County of Santa Barbara (1994) 7 Cal.4th 725, 743.) Subsequent cases have adopted these neutral principles of law to resolve church property disputes. (Korean United Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery of the Pacific, supra, at p. 498; Korean Philadelphia Presbyterian Church v. California Presbytery (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1069, 1081; Guardian Angel Polish Nat. Catholic Church of L.A., Inc. v. Grotnik (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 919, 930; Concord Christian Center v. Open Bible Standard Churches (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1396, 1408; but see California-Nevada Annual Conf. of the United Methodist Church v. St. Lukes United Methodist Church (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 754, 766-772.)

As we discuss further post, the use of neutral principles of law to resolve church property disputes has a concomitant principle. The First Amendment requires that civil courts defer to the resolution of issues of religious doctrine or polity by the highest court of a hierarchical church organization. (Jones v. Wolf, supra, 443 U.S. at p. 602.) [A] state court may resolve disputes over church property through use of neutral principles of law . . . but if the civil court is required to resolve a religious controversy, it must then defer to the resolution of the doctrine issue by the authoritative ecclesiastical body. (Korean United Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery of the Pacific, supra, 230 Cal.App.3d at p. 498.)

2. Section 9142, Subdivision (c)(2)

The Barker decision came before an important statutory change. In 1982, the California Legislature amended section 9142 by adding subdivisions (c) and (d). Section 9142 is part of the Nonprofit Religious Corporation Law ( 9110 et seq), which authorizes the formation of a corporation for religious purposes ( 9111). The powers of such a nonprofit religious corporation include the power to [a]ct as a trustee under any trust incidental to the principal objects of the corporation, and receive, hold, administer, exchange, and expend funds and property subject to such trust. ( 9140, subd. (k).) Section 9142, subdivision (a) identifies those parties which may bring an action to remedy a breach of a trust under which any or all of the assets of a nonprofit religious corporation are held. Subdivision (b) imposes some requirements on a courts power to rescind or enjoin the performance of a contract. Subdivision (c) states:

(c) No assets of a religious corporation are or shall be deemed to be impressed with any trust, express or implied, statutory or at common law unless one of the following applies:

(1) Unless, and only to the extent that, the assets were received by the corporation with an express commitment by resolution of its board of directors to so hold those assets in trust.

(2) Unless, and only to the extent that, the articles or bylaws of the corporation, or the governing instruments of a superior religious body or general church of which the corporation is a member, so expressly provide.

(3) Unless, and only to the extent that, the donor expressly imposed a trust, in writing, at the time of the gift or donation.

Section 9142, subdivision (c)(2) is the provision that is relevant to this appeal.

3. Application of Neutral Principles of Law Supports the Judgment Imposing an

Express Trust on Hope Church Real Property

We review the trial courts judgment as follows. To the extent the judgment depends on judicial interpretations of the constitution, by-laws, and other governing documents of PCUSA and Hope Church, this court applies neutral principles of law de novo. To the extent that the judgment resolves disputed factual questions, we review according to the substantial evidence test, and consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing parties, giving them the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving conflicts in support of the judgment. (Concord Christian Center v. Open Bible Standard Churches, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1408-1409.)

We apply the four Barker factors to the facts of this case.

(1) Deeds to the property: The original grant deed of church property, dated May 24, 1987, showed that title was held as Korean Hope Christian Church, a California Corporation. In 1990, Korean Hope Christian Church Corporation conveyed the church real property to Rev. Kim and his wife, who two years later transferred the property back to Hope Church on October 27, 1992. Thus at the time it joined PCUSA, Hope Church held title to the church property. After Hope Church joined PCUSA in 1995, Hope Church acquired a second church property on May 1, 1996.

(2) Local church articles of incorporation and by-laws: the Articles of Incorporation of Hope Church were filed with the California Secretary of State on May 8, 1973. The record contains a copy of the Hope Church By-Laws, Rules, and Regulations, which appears to date from 1973, but this copy is not certified by the church secretary and is unsigned. Neither document refers to PCUSA. There was evidence that Rev. Kim treated the church as his own and believed he had absolute authority to act on behalf of Hope Church, that no written corporate resolutions or minutes of session meetings were kept, no election rules applied to church elections, and that at least one church elder stated that there were no church by-laws. Thus substantial evidence supports the trial courts finding that it was irrelevant that neither the Hope Church by-laws or articles of incorporation referred to PCUSA.

(3) Constitution, canons, and rules of the general church, PCUSA: PCUSA has a written constitution with two parts, a Book of Confessions and a Book of Order. Chapter 8 of the Book of Order contains provisions concerning local church property. Book of Order G-8.0200 states: All property held by or for a particular church, a presbytery, a synod, the General Assembly, or the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), whether legal title is lodged in a corporation, a trustee or trustees, or an unincorporated association, and whether the property is used in programs of a particular church or of a more inclusive governing body or retained for the production of income, is held in trust nevertheless for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Upon becoming a member of PCUSA, a churchs property is transferred into trust for PCUSA. Book of Order G-8.0500 prohibits a local church or Session from encumbering, mortgaging, selling, or leasing church property without the presbyterys written permission.

Hope Church joined PCUSA in 1995. Church members were aware that PCUSA had a constitution which set forth rules which member churches were required to follow. Church members also knew that when a church joined PCUSA, its property became subject to PCUSAs control and supervision, and they desired this protection of PCUSA rules. There was evidence that members desired that once Hope Church joined PCUSA, church property would belong to PCUSA so that Rev. Kim would no longer attempt to own church property and could not sell it without PCUSAs permission.

(4) Relevant state statutes governing possession and disposition of such property: The relevant statute is section 9142, subdivision (c)(2), stating: (c) No assets of a religious corporation are or shall be deemed to be impressed with any trust, express or implied, statutory or at common law unless one of the following applies:

[] . . . []

(2) Unless, and only to the extent that, the articles or bylaws of the corporation, or the governing instruments of a superior religious body or general church of which the corporation is a member, so expressly provide.

Thus an express trust can be deemed to be impressed on assets of a religious corporation such as Hope Church if expressly provided in either the articles or by-laws of Hope Church, or the governing instruments of a superior religious body or general church of which Hope Church is a member, i.e., PCUSA. It is not required that the articles or by-laws of the local religious corporation expressly impress a trust on its assets; the trust can be created by the governing instrument of PCUSA, the superior religious body or general church. [P]rovisions in the constitution of the general church can override any right the majority of a local congregation might otherwise have to control local church property. (Metropolitan Philip v. Steiger (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 923, 931; Jones v. Wolf, supra, 443 U.S. at pp. 607-608; Guardian Angel Polish Nat. Catholic Church of L. A., Inc. v. Grotnik, supra, 118 Cal.App.4th at p. 930.) Where the constitution of the general church recites an express trust in favor of the denominational church, the civil courts will be bound to give effect to the result indicated by the parties, provided it is embodied in some legally cognizable form. (Jones v. Wolf, supra, at p. 606.)

The facts show that Hope Church affiliated with PCUSA with knowledge of the property provision in the PCUSA constitution, and thus subjected itself to the express restraints on local church property found in the Book of Order, which contained a provision that local church property of affiliated congregations was held in trust for the use and benefit of the PCUSA. Section 9142, subdivision (c)(2) therefore supports the creation of a trust imposed on property of Hope Church in favor of PCUSA based on the property provision in the PCUSA Book of Order. The judgment therefore should be affirmed.

4. Defendants Have Not Shown That a Trust Impressed on Assets of a Religious

Corporation Pursuant to Section 9142(c)(2) Was Invalid

Defendants cite Evidence Code section 662, which states: The owner of the legal title to property is presumed to be the owner of the full beneficial title. This presumption may be rebutted only by clear and convincing proof. Defendants claim that plaintiffs failed to provide clear and convincing proof that their beneficial interest complied with section 9142, subdivision (c)(2), and that the trial court erroneously found that the property provision in Book of Order G-8.0200 applied and created a trust under section 9142, subdivision (c)(2).

Defendants first argue that neither deeds to the church property nor the articles of incorporation of Hope Church create a trust. Section 9142, subdivision (c)(2), however, authorizes the creation of a trust if the governing instruments of a superior religious body or general church of which the corporation is a member . . . expressly provide. Thus the property provision in Book of Order G-8.0200 is sufficient to support the creation of an express trust pursuant to section 9142, subdivision (c)(2). We reiterate that provisions in the constitution of the general church can override any right the majority of a local congregation might otherwise have to control the local church property. (Metropolitan Philip v. Steiger, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 931; Jones v. Wolf, supra, 443 U.S. at pp. 607-608; Guardian Angel Polish Nat. Catholic Church of L.A., Inc. v. Grotnik, supra, 118 Cal.App.4th at p. 930.) Where the constitution of the general church recites an express trust in favor of the denominational church, the civil courts will be bound to give effect to the result indicated by the parties, provided it is embodied in some legally cognizable form. (Jones v. Wolf, supra, at p. 606.)

Defendants further argue that the Book of Order G-8.0200 cannot create a trust pursuant to section 9142, subdivision (c)(2), because a valid trust requires a competent trustors intention to create a trust, a trustee, an estate conveyed to the trustee, the trustees acceptance of the trust, a beneficiary, a legal purpose, and legal terms (Reagh v. Kelley (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 1082, 1089.) Section 9142, subdivision (c)(2), however, authorizes the assets of a religious corporation to be deemed to be impressed with an express trust if, as in this case, the governing instruments of a superior religious body or general church of which the corporation is a member, so expressly provide. Subdivision (d) of section 9142 refers to [t]rusts created by paragraph (2) of subdivision (c)[.] Section 9142, subdivision (c)(2) thus authorizes the creation of a trust on the assets of a religious corporation without all elements required by Reagh v. Kelley. The statutory provisions governing nonprofit religious corporations discuss various methods by which the assets of a religious corporation may be deemed to be impressed with an express or implied trust. (See Corp. Code, 9142, subd. (c).) (Korean Philadelphia Presbyterian Church v. California Presbytery, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1088-1089, fn. 20.) The creation of a trust by the governing instruments of a superior religious body or general church of which the corporation is a member is one such method, and there is no requirement that the local churchs articles of incorporation or by-laws must contain an express reference to the higher bodys rules or laws. (Id. at p. 1088.) When the governing instrument of a superior religious body or general church creates the trust, no provision of express trust is required in the local church by-laws or articles of incorporation. (Korean United Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery of the Pacific, supra, 230 Cal.App.3d at p. 510.)

We reject defendants argument that section 9142, subdivision (c)(2) merely creates an implied trust and therefore did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that a trust in favor of PCUSA rebutted the Evidence Code section 662 presumption that the owner of legal title to property also owns full beneficial title. Instead the property provision in Book of Order G-8.0200 created an express trust authorized by section 9142, subdivision (c)(2). If any conflict between Evidence code section 662 and section 9142, subdivision (c)(2) exists, the latter is the more specific statute and prevails over the former, more general one. (Garcia v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 478.)

Defendants discussion of the legislative intent of section 9142 is unnecessary, because the meaning of that statute is clear. Where statutory language is clear and unambiguous, we follow its plain meaning and do not look elsewhere for evidence of legislative intent. (Kobzoff v. Los Angeles County Harbor/UCLA Medical Center (1998) 19 Cal.4th 851, 861.)

Defendants rely on California-Nevada Annual Conf. Of the United Methodist Church v. St. Lukes United Methodist Church, supra, 121 Cal.App.4th 754 (St. Lukes) as holding that section 9142 is not intended to supplant basic principles of trust law. In St. Lukes, the local church was incorporated and affiliated with a national denomination, The United Methodist Church. The national churchs governing instrument, the Book of Discipline, stated that the United Methodist Churchs  conferences, councils, boards, agencies, local churches, and other units bearing the name United Methodist  were the entities possessing legal capacities. (St. Lukes, at p. 758.) The Book of Discipline required titles to local church properties to be held in trust for the United Methodist Church, set forth trust language to be used in instruments of conveyance, and stated that the absence of a trust clause in previously executed deeds and conveyances would not exclude a local church from its connectional responsibilities to the United Methodist Church. From 1949 to 1998, the local church acquired title to nine properties; five grant deeds contained trust clauses in favor of the national denomination, while four grant deeds did not. (Id. at pp. 758-759.)

A doctrinal dispute arose in 1999 and 2000. Many local church members were on one side; their bishop was on the other. In August 2000, the bishop replaced the pastor of the local church with a new pastor. The day after the new pastor was introduced to people at the church, he was locked out of the church.

Representatives of the national church sued the local church and the president of the local churchs board of trustees for breach of a charitable trust, seeking injunctive relief and damages. The local church cross-complained, seeking declaratory relief and a declaration that plaintiffs had no interest in the property and that the local church could revoke any trust interest in real property by recording grant deeds, and deeding the property to itself without any trust language. Before trial, the local church amended its articles of incorporation to disaffiliate itself with the United Methodist Church and to provide that it held its property in trust for itself only. (St. Lukes, supra, 121 Cal.App.4th at pp. 760-761.) After a trial, the trial court found that there was a trust interest in favor of the United Methodist Church and that the local church could not and did not unilaterally revoke that trust. The trial court also ordered injunctive relief in favor of plaintiffs, directing the local church to execute and record deeds to the local church property with trust language in favor of the United Methodist Church. (Id. at p. 761.)

St. Lukes reversed this judgment. Although St. Lukes found that substantial evidence supported the finding that a trust interest was created in favor of the United Methodist Church, the decision also concluded that the local church could and did revoke that trust. The St. Lukes opinion asserts that interpreting section 9142, subdivision (c)(2) as authorizing a general church to create a trust in favor of itself with the trust property being the local churchs property is at odds with other general principles of trust law, and states that nothing in the statute appears to have been intended to create a new kind of trust which had not previously existed. (St. Lukes, supra, 121 Cal.App.4th at pp. 769, 770.) This, however, is dicta. The St. Lukes opinion found that the Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church did not by itself create the trust. Instead, the local churchs articles of incorporation, and the presence of trust language on five of the nine deeds, demonstrated an intent to be bound by the rules of the Book of Discipline, i.e., an intent to hold the property in trust for the benefit of both the local church and the United Methodist Church. Thus if the trust in favor of the United Methodist Church was a trust created by [section 9142, subdivision (c)(2)], that trust could be amended or dissolved by amending the St. Lukes articles of incorporation to expressly state that St. Lukes would not be affiliated with or subject . . . to the . . . discipline . . . of the United Methodist Church, and that it would hold property in trust for the sole benefit of this Corporation. (Id. at pp. 770-771.)

Even if it is true that a trust created pursuant to section 9142, subdivision (c)(2) is at odds with other general principles of trust law, the Legislature has nonetheless authorized the creation of such trusts as part of the Nonprofit Religious Corporation Law. Section 9142, subdivision (d) expressly refers to the validity of such trusts when it refers to [t]rusts created by paragraph (2) of subdivision (c)[.] St. Lukes, moreover, is factually distinguishable from the case at bench, in which the dispute about church property arose because of a division or schism of the Hope Church into two congregations (one of which, pursuant to the Book of Order, was subsequently declared to be the true church), rather than, as in St. Lukes, the attempt by a congregation to disaffiliate from, and to revoke its trust in favor of, that national church. We therefore find that St. Lukes does not govern this appeal.

5. The Trial Court Properly Deferred to the Determination by PCUSA, Hanmi

Presbytery, and the Hope Administrative Commission of Who Constituted the

True Church of Hope Church

Defendants have raised an issue relating to the ability of Hope Church to secede from PCUSA. The judgment has determined that a trust on property of Hope Church was created in favor of PCUSA, and has also quieted title in the Hanmi Presbytery, an entity of PCUSA. We affirm this judgment. Therefore whether Hope Church can secede from PCUSA no longer has any importance to the disposition of the real property of Hope Church. It only has importance to the request for injunctive relief in the complaint, which sought such injunctive relief as might be necessary to assure control over the real property by the Hope Administrative Commission and Hanmi Presbytery. In that context we address defendants argument that Hope church had the power to leave PCUSA and once it did so, PCUSA had no secular power over Hope Church.

Defendants rely on Barker, supra, 115 Cal.App.3d 599, which states: Under neutral principles of law if a local body affiliated with a national body holds title to property in its own name and later secedes, the national body has little basis to claim that such property is held in trust for it. (Evid. Code, 662; Civ. Code, 1105.) If a local organization secedes from one national entity and affiliates with another, absent other factors no claim can be laid to property owned by and held in the name of the local organization. (Barker, at p. 622; italics added.) Another factor arose after Barker was decided: the legislature enacted section 9412, subdivision (c)(2), which authorized an express trust over assets of a religious corporation based on governing instruments of a superior religious body or general church of which that corporation is a member. Moreover, one of the four defendant local churches in Barker had incorporated after a Diocesan cannon declared that on dissolution of a local church, its property became distributable to the Diocese and specifically identified that local church as a subordinate body of a national body pursuant to provisions of the Corporations Code. Thus Barker found that this local churchs assets were subject to an express trust in favor of the Diocese. (Barker, at pp. 623-625.)

There is an additional difference between the facts of Barker and those of the case at bench. None of the four churches in Barker who sought to disaffiliate with the national church had divided congregations in schism, each of which schismatic groups claimed to be the true church. That division or schism, by contrast, did occur in the Hope Church, with Rev. Kim and some of his followers attempting to take control of the Hope Church and its assets, and other Hope Church members opposing those efforts. In this circumstance the question is not whether a local church can secede and disaffiliate from the national denomination. Instead the issue is how to resolve claims of competing portions of the church membership to be the true church and of possession and control of its assets. (See Metropolitan Philip v. Steiger, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 930-931.) Hope Church, by joining PCUSA, subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the national denomination and its constitution, the Book of Order. Book of Order G-8.0600 states: The relationship to the [PCUSA] of a particular church can be severed only by constitutional action on the part of the presbytery. (G-11.0103i) If there is a schism within the membership of a particular church and the presbytery is unable to effect a reconciliation or a division into separate churches within the [PCUSA], the presbytery shall determine if