Mountain Lakes District, North Alabama Annual Conference, United Methodist Church, Inc. v. Oak Grove Methodist Church, by and through John "Bobby" Green, its representative

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 4/26/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2111157 Mountain Lakes D i s t r i c t , North Alabama Annual Conference, U n i t e d Methodist Church, Inc. v. Oak Grove Methodist Church, by and through John "Bobby" Green, i t s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e Appeal from Blount C i r c u i t Court (CV-2009-083) DONALDSON, J u d g e . This case a r i s e s from a dispute over t h e ownership o f t h r e e p a r c e l s o f r e a l e s t a t e on w h i c h a c h u r c h b u i l d i n g a n d a cemetery a r e l o c a t e d . One p a r t y moved f o r summary j u d g m e n t . 2111157 The other p a r t y d i d not. A summary j u d g m e n t was entered i n f a v o r o f t h e nonmovant, and t h e movant a p p e a l e d . B e c a u s e movant was the n o t f u l l y h e a r d on a l l i s s u e s , we must r e v e r s e t h e judgment. Oak "the For Grove M e t h o d i s t Church local church") i s a p l a c e of worship many y e a r s , the local U n i t e d Methodist Church filed i n the through (hereinafter name of church was Grove i n Blount to as County. associated with the I n A p r i l 2009, s u i t denomination. "Oak referred was Methodist Church, by and John ' B o b b y ' Green, i t s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e " ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as "Mr. Green") a g a i n s t Mountain Lakes District, N o r t h Alabama A n n u a l C o n f e r e n c e , U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t Church, I n c . ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as " M o u n t a i n a l l e g e d t h a t the l o c a l least 1873 and Lakes"). The complaint c h u r c h had b e e n i n e x i s t e n c e s i n c e a t t h a t i t had Methodist Church s i n c e the t h e p l a i n t i f f as been a f f i l i a t e d w i t h the 1960's. The United complaint described follows: "The P l a i n t i f f ( ' t h e l o c a l c h u r c h ' ) i s a c h u r c h o f C h r i s t i a n s who meet a t t h e s i t e where t h e c h u r c h b u i l d i n g now s t a n d s The b e l i e v e r s have met and owned t h e l a n d t h e r e s i n c e a t l e a s t t h e y e a r 1 8 7 3 . " Mr. G r e e n a l l e g e d t h a t t h e l o c a l c h u r c h had 15 members and t h a t "by a v o t e o f 8-2 2 of the approximately congregation," 2111157 t a k e n i n November 2008, i t was United Methodist several members Methodist Church Church. of the no l o n g e r a f f i l i a t e d w i t h t h e Mr. Green local officials further church before had to the alleged met with vote that United conducted in November 2008, and t h a t the d e c i s i o n t o d i s a f f i l i a t e from the U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t Church had "[b]y that a vote had of 18-5." developed 1 been c o n f i r m e d The complaint i n February described b e t w e e n members o f t h e local 2009 conflicts church who supported the d e c i s i o n to sever t i e s w i t h the U n i t e d Methodist Church and those who opposed the decision. The complaint a l l e g e d t h a t a d i s p u t e h ad a r i s e n o v e r t h e o w n e r s h i p and certain real property. Mr. Green alleged A l a b a m a t r u s t l a w s , t h e l a n d i n d i s p u t e was the complaint that, Although the d e s c r i b e d as a " n o t - f o r - p r o f i t c o r p o r a t i o n , " d i d not identify any t r u s t e e s of the c h u r c h o r d e s c r i b e an o r g a n i z e d s t r u c t u r e o f t h e l o c a l The under not h e l d i n t r u s t f o r the b e n e f i t of the U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t Church. l o c a l c h u r c h was o f money c o m p l a i n t d i d n o t e x p l a i n Mr. local church. Green's s t a t u s i n r e l a t i o n The r e a s o n t h e number o f p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h i s vote exceeded the s t a t e d a c t i v e membership of the l o c a l c h u r c h i s not e x p l a i n e d i n the c o m p l a i n t ; however, m a t e r i a l s i n the r e c o r d s u g g e s t t h a t t h i s m i g h t have b e e n t h e r e s u l t o f a d e c l i n e i n m e m b e r s h i p a f t e r t h e F e b r u a r y 2009 v o t e . 1 3 2111157 to the local church or standing to bring church. The the complaint following declaratory i d e n t i f y on suit as what b a s i s Mr. a representative Green of c o n t a i n e d a j u r y demand and the had local sought the relief: "Specifically, the 'local c h u r c h ' seeks a j u d i c i a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f i t s r i g h t s and d u t i e s , and a d e c l a r a t i o n : ( a ) t h a t a l l p r o p e r t y h e l d by o r f o r ' t h e l o c a l c h u r c h , ' and any i m p r o v e m e n t s t h e r e o n , whether real or personal, including, without limitation, the Land and Money, corporeal or i n c o r p o r e a l , movable or immovable, i s h e l d w i t h o u t any t r u s t i n f a v o r o f t h e n a t i o n a l d e n o m i n a t i o n o r nay [ s i c ] o f i t s r e g i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e u n i t s ; ( b ) t h a t a l l p r o p e r t y h e l d by o r t i t l e d i n t h e name o f t h e l o c a l c h u r c h i s h e l d by i t i n f u l l and e x c l u s i v e o w n e r s h i p ; and ( c ) t h a t n e i t h e r t h e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h n o r t h e D e f e n d a n t s u b s i d i a r y has any r i g h t , t i t l e or i n t e r e s t i n the s a i d p r o p e r t y , nor r i g h t t o determine or i n t e r f e r e w i t h the ownership t h e r e o f or the e x e r c i s e of r i g h t s t h e r e i n . " 2 The c o m p l a i n t a l s o sought to e n j o i n the U n i t e d C h u r c h o r any o f i t s a g e n t s f r o m t a k i n g any t h e l o c a l c h u r c h o r any a s s e t s of the l o c a l church. a l s o f i l e d an ex p a r t e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r the complaint, but r e l i e f . A hearing in trial court "Money" were n o t 4 regarding Mr. injunctive relief did not grant on h i s r e q u e s t f o r t e m p o r a r y o r T h e " L a n d " and the complaint. 2 the action Methodist ex Green with parte preliminary specifically described 2111157 injunctive relief was held 6 days f i l e d . T h a t r e q u e s t was a l s o after the complaint was denied. M o u n t a i n L a k e s , t h e named d e f e n d a n t , i s a n o t - f o r - p r o f i t c o r p o r a t i o n i n c o r p o r a t e d i n Etowah C o u n t y . that, pursuant Methodist defend to the rules Church, Mountain and Lakes policies of the i s the proper filed an answer and p r o p e r t y . to the complaint, entitled Lakes also to the r e a l asserted "affirmative defenses," counterclaim that church; a history relationship the word property other of the United "Methodist"; i t Mountain described denominations a history Methodist description as a of the l o c a l Church whose name of a and r e a l including estoppel. I t also f i l e d included a detailed to previous that t h a t M r . Green or the funds. defenses to Mountain d i s p u t e had a r i s e n r e g a r d i n g t h e ownership o f funds was United of the admitting p r o p e r t y used by t h e l o c a l church b u t denying agree entity t h e l a w s u i t a n d t o a s s e r t a c l a i m on b e h a l f U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t Church t o the funds Lakes The p a r t i e s the and i t s contained rules and r e g u l a t i o n s of the U n i t e d Methodist Church r e l a t i n g t o church property which are contained Book o f D i s c i p l i n e ; i n the United Methodist and t h e reasons 5 Church why i t s h o u l d be a w a r d e d 2111157 ownership of the real that the local regulations, and claimed property church polity of and had pursuant interest benefit United a l l the rules, Methodist Book o f D i s c i p l i n e , Lakes Church and that t h e r e t o , i t s h o u l d be a w a r d e d a l l r i g h t s , t i t l e , in of the the congregation Mountain Mountain 3 accepted the contained i n t h a t denomination's funds. funds United known Lakes as and real Methodist Oak contended Grove that property " f o r the denomination United the the Methodist local a f f i l i a t e d w i t h predecessor denominations and congregations a l l places local church had been t h a t had merged w i t h L a k e s a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e Book o f D i s c i p l i n e that and Church." o r had become a p a r t o f t h e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h . c l a u s e " t h a t "mandates use and Mountain contains a of U n i t e d "trust Methodist a r e t o be h e l d ' i n t r u s t , ' t o be u s e d , k e p t and m a i n t a i n e d as p l a c e s o f d i v i n e w o r s h i p o f t h e U n i t e d Methodist ministry f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f members o f t h e U n i t e d Methodist Church." Mountain Lakes f u r t h e r denied a u t h o r i z e d t o b r i n g t h e a c t i o n o r t o be or funds and that Mr. Green awarded the was property stated: Mountain Lakes c l a i m e d t h a t i t i s a u t h o r i z e d under the Book o f D i s c i p l i n e t o " h o l d t i t l e t o p r o p e r t y and t o e n f o r c e t r u s t s f o r the b e n e f i t of the denomination...." 3 6 2111157 " T h e r e i s no p r o o f t h a t 'John "Bobby" G r e e n ' has a u t h o r i t y f o r and on b e h a l f o f t h e Plaintiff's g r o u p , o r e v e n t h a t any o r g a n i z a t i o n o r a s s o c i a t i o n p u r p o r t e d l y known as 'Oak G r o v e M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h , ' exists. " P l a i n t i f f ' s group's complaint f a i l s to i d e n t i f y any p e r s o n o r p e r s o n s p u r p o r t e d l y r e p r e s e n t e d by J o h n 'Bobby' G r e e n . " M o u n t a i n L a k e s assumed t h a t t h e c o m p l a i n t b e h a l f of the individual not remain wish to Church. indicating and, consent of that the i t asserted, unincorporated single affiliated with local the church United who on did Methodist However, M o u n t a i n L a k e s r e a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e r e was evidence entity, members o f t h e had b e e n b r o u g h t local church was local church i s , "at best, the association, which a l l i t s members not may only through an no organized act the with actions an the of a individual." Mr. Green references contained i n the o r i g i n a l disaffiliate financial amended t o Alabama t r u s t United Methodist During later and complaint complaint course institution) to to d e l e t e the delete reference to the meeting h e l d Church o f f i c i a l s before from the the law his the initial with vote to Bank (a denomination. of the litigation, intervened 7 i n the Superior action, asserting 2111157 that i t had funds on d e p o s i t b e n e f i t of the l o c a l church the local church Some a c c o u n t s Lakes the associated with i n a safe d e p o s i t box. church, were l i s t e d i n bank r e c o r d s as b e i n g t h e o f t h e "Oak G r o v e Cemetery asserted claims Fund." Both Mountain t o t h e funds i n those S u p e r i o r Bank was p e r m i t t e d t o i n t e r p l e a d t h e f u n d s i n t o c o u r t a n d was d i s c h a r g e d This for were a p p a r e n t l y i n t h e name o f t h e l o c a l a n d Mr. G r e e n accounts. accounts as w e l l as i t e m s t h a t were c o n t a i n e d w h i l e other accounts property i n several appeal from t h e l i t i g a t i o n . i n v o l v e s the ownership 4 of three parcels of r e a l e s t a t e and t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h r e e deeds. The f i r s t d e e d ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as "deed no. 1") was r e c o r d e d i n 1879. local Deed no. 1 d e s c r i b e s 5 the p a r c e l of land c h u r c h ' s b u i l d i n g i s l o c a t e d . The g r a n t e e s where t h e o f t h e deed a r e d e s c r i b e d as f o l l o w s : " " J a s . Good, Thos. L a n c a s t e r Rickles their as t r u s t e e s successors o f t h e Oak G r o v e i n office forever." Methodist T he & Jeve Church and s e c ond de ed The j u d g m e n t a p p e a l e d f r o m i n t h i s c a s e made an a w a r d o f those funds. N e i t h e r p a r t y addresses the d i v i s i o n of those f u n d s on t h i s a p p e a l . 4 There i s a discrepancy i n the record concerning the c o r r e c t d a t e t h i s d e e d was r e c o r d e d , b u t n e i t h e r p a r t y a s s e r t s t h a t t h e date o f t h e deed i s a f a c t o f consequence i n t h i s case. 5 8 2111157 (hereinafter December referred 1897. t o as "deed The l a n d 6 no. 2") described i s apparently grantees of this a factual deed. dispute Mountain recorded i n i n d e e d no. 2 i s b e i n g u s e d as a c e m e t e r y t h a t i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h There was Lakes the l o c a l as church. to the asserts correct that the g r a n t e e s were c e r t a i n named i n d i v i d u a l s as " T r u s t e e s o f t h e M.E. Church grantee South." 7 Mr. Green asserts that d e s c r i p t i o n i n d e e d no. 2 i s " T r u s t e e s Church South o f t h e B l o u n t s v i l l e and H a n c e v i l l e reply brief, Blountsville material entry the of Mountain Lakes and H a n c e v i l l e t h a t was b e f o r e the (hereinafter, judgment the " f i n a l asserts o f t h e M.E. ch." In i t s t h e words "of the ch." are not contained i n any the t r i a l from which order"). 8 that correct court the a t the time of the appeal was taken M o u n t a i n L a k e s does n o t As w i t h d e e d no. 1, t h e r e i s a d i s c r e p a n c y i n t h e r e c o r d c o n c e r n i n g t h e c o r r e c t d a t e t h i s d e e d was r e c o r d e d , b u t n e i t h e r p a r t y a s s e r t s t h a t t h e date o f t h e deed i s a f a c t o f consequence i n t h i s case. 6 The i n d i v i d u a l s a r e n o t named i n t h e p a r t i e s ' b r i e f s t o t h i s c o u r t . M o u n t a i n L a k e s c o n t e n d s t h a t "M.E. C h u r c h S o u t h " s t a n d s f o r t h e M e t h o d i s t E p i s c o p a l C h u r c h S o u t h , an e n t i t y t h a t merged w i t h two o t h e r d e n o m i n a t i o n s i n 1939 t o f o r m t h e " M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h , " w h i c h became t h e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h i n 1968. 7 T h e r e a s o n f o r t h e a l l e g e d d i s c r e p a n c y as t o t h e i d e n t i t y of t h e g r a n t e e s i s n o t e x p l a i n e d i n t h e p a r t i e s ' b r i e f s . 8 9 2111157 move t o s t r i k e t h e m a t e r i a l c o n t a i n i n g t h o s e words on a p p e a l ; instead, the i t argues t h a t t h e words s u p p o r t i t s p o s i t i o n t h a t i n t e n t of the grantor denomination. was t o c o n v e y t h e p r o p e r t y In the f i n a l following f i n d i n g regarding order, the t r i a l to the c o u r t made t h e the grantees of t h i s deed: " T h e r e e x i s t s a d e e d ... ('deed No. 2') ... w h i c h d e e d e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y one a c r e t o ' T r u s t e e s o f t h e M E Church South of the B l o u n t s v i l l e & H a n c e v i l l e c h ' . ... The C o u r t n o t e s t h a t t h e words 'Oak G r o v e ' a r e i n p a r e n t h e s i s a f t e r t h e 'ch' i n t h e d e s i g n a t i o n . I t i s c l e a r by l o o k i n g a t t h e o r i g i n a l probate r e c o r d t h a t t h e s e words were a d d e d sometime a f t e r t h e d e e d was f i l e d a n d were w r i t t e n i n a d i f f e r e n t i n k . " Neither Grove" were grantees. p a r t y a d d r e s s e s t h e f i n d i n g t h a t t h e words "Oak added a t some p o i n t Mountain Lakes contends, p a r t y r a i s e d any i s s u e r e g a r d i n g before that the o r i g i n a l probate t h i r d deed the t r i a l land being with church. court's court. u s e d as a c e m e t e r y i n a s s o c i a t i o n This d e e d was r e c o r d e d conveyed a s m a l l t r a c t o f l a n d t o t h e "Trustees Methodist record ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as "deed no. 3") also describes the l o c a l neither t h e a d d i t i o n o f t h e words was n o t s u p p o r t e d the materials before The however, t h e e n t r y o f t h e f i n a l order and t h a t t h e t r i a l finding regarding by to the d e s c r i p t i o n of the Church." 10 i n 1965 a n d o f Oak G r o v e 2111157 On M a r c h summary 24, 2011, M o u n t a i n L a k e s judgment, evidentiary history with an a c c o m p a n y i n g material, of the United filed including a motion brief, documents M e t h o d i s t Church for a s u p p o r t e d by reflecting the as i t e v o l v e d f r o m predecessor Methodist denominations, the h i s t o r y of the l o c a l c h u r c h , t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e l o c a l c h u r c h and v a r i o u s Methodist excerpts denominations, Methodist Church's Book and of D i s c i p l i n e from that the United Mountain c o n t e n d e d were a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e o w n e r s h i p o f r e a l Lakes property. I t was M o u n t a i n L a k e s ' p o s i t i o n f o r p u r p o s e s o f i t s m o t i o n f o r a summary judgment unambiguously that the three deeds granted ownership of the p a r c e l s those deeds local c h u r c h , t h a t t h e r e were no g e n u i n e fact as to to the United the ownership M e t h o d i s t Church of those question described i n and n o t t o t h e issues of m a t e r i a l parcels, t h e r e f o r e , t h o s e p a r c e l s s h o u l d be awarded the U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t Church in and that, t o i t on b e h a l f o f t o be h e l d i n t r u s t f o r t h e use b e n e f i t o f t h e "Oak G r o v e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h . " 9 Mr. G r e e n r e s p o n d e d b y a s s e r t i n g t h a t t h e deeds were ambiguous a n d t h a t M o u n t a i n L a k e s ' m o t i o n f o r a summary judgment d i d n o t a d d r e s s t h e funds t h a t had been i n t e r p l e a d e d i n t o c o u r t by S u p e r i o r Bank. 9 11 2111157 questions of f a c t remained r e g a r d i n g the g r a n t o r s ' i n t e n t i n each deed. judgment Mr. was Green specifically not appropriate questions presented. asserted i n view Mr. G r e e n that summary of the alleged fact d i d n o t move f o r a summary judgment. A h e a r i n g was a p p a r e n t l y h e l d the on September 7, 2 0 1 1 , on summary-judgment m o t i o n by Lakes. September 8, filed 2011, t h e t r i a l court Mountain denied Mountain summary-judgment m o t i o n a n d s e t t h e c a s e f o r t r i a l On Lakes' on O c t o b e r 24, 2 0 1 1 . M o u n t a i n L a k e s t h e n moved t o s t r i k e t h e j u r y demand f i l e d b y Mr. G r e e n on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r t h e deeds were ambiguous was one o f l a w , n o t f a c t . asserted: to the Mountain Lakes " T h i s c a s e o n l y i n v o l v e s c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e deeds Oak Grove United Methodist Church and cemetery p r o p e r t y . Whether t h o s e documents a r e ambiguous o r n o t i s a q u e s t i o n o f l a w . T h e r e f o r e , t h e r e i s no n e e d f o r a j u r y in this cause, and i n d e e d , a jury trial i s not p e r m i s s i b l e . " A r u l i n g on t h e m o t i o n t o s t r i k e t h e j u r y demand does n o t a p p e a r in the record. Mountain Lakes subsequently f i l e d w i t n e s s e s a n d e x h i b i t s t o be o f f e r e d a t t h e t r i a l "pursuant t o [the t r i a l court's] 12 'Order Setting a list of of the case Civil Jury 2111157 Case for Trial' asserts "who that would e n t e r e d October i t identified have 1, 2010." Mountain i n t h a t document t h r e e w i t n e s s e s testified regarding the 'intent' g r a n t o r s o f t h e deeds a t i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e . " f i l e d a w i t n e s s and e x h i b i t l i s t which Mountain Lakes filed a October the also i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of t r i a l , motion to for clarification or court entered t h a t a l l p e n d i n g m o t i o n s w o u l d be h e a r d on transcript On 24. There appeal, of Mr. Green s u p p l e m e n t a t i o n . On O c t o b e r 19, 2011, t h e t r i a l an o r d e r s t a t i n g Lakes i s no both p a r t i e s Mountain Lakes' agree of the October that 24 hearing. the h e a r i n g addressed summary-judgment m o t i o n even though i t had b e e n d e n i e d on September 8, 2011. On A p r i l 30, 2012, t h e court rendered i t s d e t a i l e d trial court noted that spiritual or operations or p o l i t y , and courts ecclesiastical citing thorough will not concerns Trinity final trial order. address issues regarding Presbyterian Montgomery v. T a n k e r s l e y , 374 So. 2d 861 The of church Church of ( A l a . 1979). In t h a t c a s e , t h e Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t , a l t h o u g h : "civil c o u r t s cannot r e s o l v e d i s p u t e s c o n c e r n i n g s p i r i t u a l o r e c c l e s i a s t i c a l a f f a i r s , and d e c i s i o n s of a h i e r a r c h i c a l c h u r c h ' s j u d i c a t o r i e s must be followed regarding such m a t t e r s , . . . c i v i l courts 13 only 2111157 [may] resolv[e] disputes concerning civil or p r o p e r t y r i g h t s . A b y s s i n i a M i s s i o n a r y B a p t i s t Church v. N i x o n , 340 So. 2d 746 ( A l a . 1 9 7 7 ) ; W i l l i a m s v. J o n e s , 258 A l a . 59, 61 So. 2d 101 ( 1 9 5 2 ) . The U.S. Supreme C o u r t r e c o g n i z e d t h e r i g h t o f c i v i l c o u r t s to decide disputes concerning church property i n Presbyterian C h u r c h v. Mary E.B. H u l l Memorial P r e s b y t e r i a n C h u r c h , 393 U.S. 440, 89 S. C t . 601, 21 L. Ed. 2d 658 (1969) and i n M a r y l a n d & V i r g i n i a E l d e r s h i p o f t h e C h u r c h e s o f God v. C h u r c h o f God a t S h a r p s b u r g , I n c . , 396 U.S. 367, 90 S. C t . 499, 24 L. Ed. 2d 582 ( 1 9 7 0 ) . B o t h H u l l and S h a r p s b u r g c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e t h a t c i v i l c o u r t s have a u t h o r i t y t o d e c i d e d i s p u t e s c o n c e r n i n g c h u r c h p r o p e r t y ; however, c i v i l courts cannot resolve controversies involving r e l i g i o u s d o c t r i n e or p r a c t i c e i n d e c i d i n g such p r o p e r t y d i s p u t e s . I n o t h e r w o r d s , t h e c o u r t s must d e c i d e t h e p r o p e r t y d i s p u t e s by l o o k i n g a t s o - c a l l e d ' n e u t r a l p r i n c i p l e s o f l a w ' and n o t r e s o l v e the u n d e r l y i n g c o n t r o v e r s i e s over r e l i g i o u s d o c t r i n e . H u l l , 393 U.S. 440 a t 449, 89 S. C t . 601, 21 L. Ed. 2d 658." Id. at 865-66. The "neutral trial court a p p r o p r i a t e l y s t a t e d t h a t i t would p r i n c i p l e s of ownership of the the law" and real property l a n g u a g e o f t h e d e e d s . On held that w o u l d be the issue apply of determined s o l e l y t h a t b a s i s , the court ruled follows: "As t o d e e d No. 1 the c o u r t f i n d s t h a t the l a n g u a g e o f t h e d e e d i s c o n t r o l l i n g and t h a t s a i d p a r c e l b e l o n g s t o t h e ' t r u s t e e s ' o f t h e c h u r c h and n o t t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s . I t w o u l d be t h e present successors of those t r u s t e e s t h a t would determine w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e y w i s h t o have a ' U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t 14 the by as 2111157 C h u r c h ' c o n g r e g a t i o n meet i n a n d a s s e m b l e upon l a n d and b u i l d i n g ( s ) . said "As t o d e e d No. 2 t h e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e language o f t h i s deed i s c o n t r o l l i n g and t h a t s a i d p a r c e l again belongs t o the 'trustees' of the church and n o t t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s . T h i s d e e d d e s i g n a t e s t h i s l a n d as a c e m e t e r y a n d i t s h a l l r e m a i n a c e m e t e r y . A g a i n , i t w o u l d be t h e p r e s e n t s u c c e s s o r s o f t h o s e t r u s t e e s t h a t w o u l d be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e s a i d cemetery and i t s upkeep. "As t o d e e d No. 3 t h e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e language o f t h i s deed i s c o n t r o l l i n g and t h a t s a i d p a r c e l again belongs t o the 'trustees' of the church and n o t t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s , a n d i t w o u l d be t h e p r e s e n t s u c c e s s o r s o f t h o s e t r u s t e e s t h a t w o u l d be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e s a i d cemetery and i t s upkeep." The of final o r d e r a l s o awarded a l l f u n d s h e l d i n t h e name "Oak Grove M e t h o d i s t Church" t o Mountain Lakes and a l l f u n d s h e l d i n t h e name o f t h e "Oak G r o v e C e m e t e r y Fund" t o t h e Oak G r o v e U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h C e m e t e r y A s s o c i a t i o n , I n c . , an e n t i t y t h a t was n o t a p a r t y t o t h e a c t i o n . Mountain Lakes does n o t r a i s e a n y i s s u e on a p p e a l r e g a r d i n g t h e award o f t h e f u n d s , a n d Mr. G r e e n d i d n o t f i l e a cross-appeal. 1 0 Mountain Lakes f i l e d a t i m e l y motion t o a l t e r , vacate the f i n a l order. amend o r Mountain Lakes argues t h a t o n l y i t s I n i t s postjudgment motion, Mountain Lakes a s s e r t e d t h a t Oak Grove U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t C e m e t e r y Fund, I n c . , was n o t a p a r t y t o t h e l i t i g a t i o n , a n d c o u l d n o t be a w a r d e d any f u n d s w i t h o u t b e i n g made a p a r t y . T h a t i s s u e h a s n o t b e e n p r e s e n t e d on t h i s a p p e a l . 1 0 15 2111157 m o t i o n f o r a summary judgment a s s e r t i n g t h a t no g e n u i n e i s s u e s of material fact existed as t o i t s c l a i m of ownership b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t . The f i n a l o r d e r , however, was contains the following prefatory statements: " T h i s c a u s e came t o be h e a r d on O c t o b e r 24, 2011 on [ M o u n t a i n L a k e s ' ] M o t i o n f o r Summary Judgment. ... A t t h e h e a r i n g c o u n s e l f o r t h e p a r t i e s i n f o r m e d the C o u r t t h a t t h e r e was no d i s p u t e as t o t h e p e r t i n e n t f a c t s n e e d e d f o r t h e c o u r t t o make a f i n a l decision. "The C o u r t a f t e r an o r e t e n u s h e a r i n g a n d h a v i n g c o n s i d e r e d t h e arguments o f c o u n s e l and h a v i n g reviewed the submissions of counsel finds as follows: " Mountain Lakes a s s e r t e d i n i t s postjudgment motion t h a t i t had not agreed a t the October 24 hearing that no additional e v i d e n c e w o u l d be p r e s e n t e d i f i t s summary-judgment m o t i o n was denied; rather, whether i t would i t asserted present only that additional i t had not d e c i d e d evidence at a trial. Mountain Lakes argues: " [ M o u n t a i n L a k e s ' ] m o t i o n f o r summary judgment was b a s e d on i t s a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e deeds t o t h e c h u r c h and cemetery which a r e a t t h e c e n t e r o f t h i s a c t i o n were unambiguous, and t h a t t h e a p p r o p r i a t e c o n s t r u c t i o n t h e r e o f mandated a r u l i n g i n f a v o r o f [ M o u n t a i n L a k e s ] as a m a t t e r o f l a w . "By i t s F i n a l O r d e r , [ t h e t r i a l c o u r t ] has a p p a r e n t l y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e deeds were ambiguous. T h a t b e i n g t h e c a s e , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e Haney's C h a p e l 16 2111157 U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t Church [v. U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t Church, 716 So. 2d 1156 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) , ] d e c i s i o n c i t e d b y [ t h e t r i a l c o u r t ] i n i t s F i n a l O r d e r , [ M o u n t a i n L a k e s ] as w e l l as [Mr. Green] i s authorized to introduce e x t r i n s i c evidence to explain the i n t e n t of the d r a f t e r s o f t h e deeds a t i s s u e . " M o u n t a i n L a k e s c o n t e n d s t h a t , b e c a u s e i t s m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t was d e n i e d , i t was e n t i t l e d t o a t r i a l on t h e m e r i t s : "[Mountain Lakes] had a l r e a d y f i l e d i t s w i t n e s s and e x h i b i t l i s t . . . i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f t h e t r i a l i t was e x p e c t i n g . That w i t n e s s and e x h i b i t l i s t i d e n t i f i e d a t l e a s t t h r e e l i v e w i t n e s s e s ... who w o u l d h a v e t e s t i f i e d regarding the 'intent' of the grantors of the deeds a t i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e . "In s h o r t , t h e o r e tenus r u l e i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e to t h i s appeal since contrary to the t r i a l j u d g e ' s s t a t e m e n t i n h i s F i n a l O r d e r no o r e t e n u s h e a r i n g e v e r was h e l d . M o u n t a i n L a k e s was d e n i e d i t s opportunity f o r a t r i a l . The c o r r e c t s t a t u s o f t h i s case, p r o c e d u r a l l y , i s t h a t [Mountain Lakes'] m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t was o v e r r u l e d . The n e x t s t e p s h o u l d have b e e n a n d s t i l l may me -- t o s e t t h i s matter f o r t r i a l . " Mr. Green a g r e e s t h a t t h e O c t o b e r 24 p r o c e e d i n g was c o n d u c t e d o n l y as a h e a r i n g on M o u n t a i n L a k e s ' summary-judgment m o t i o n : " A t t h e summary j u d g m e n t h e a r i n g on O c t o b e r 24, 2011, no e v i d e n t i a r y s u b m i s s i o n s were made b y [Mr. Green] i n r e s p o n s e t o [ M o u n t a i n L a k e s ' ] m o t i o n f o r Summary Judgment. However, b o t h s i d e s made l e n g t h y arguments b a s e d on [ M o u n t a i n L a k e s ' ] evidentiary s u b m i s s i o n . A t t h e h e a r i n g , [Mr. Green] conceded that [Mountain Lakes] could get a l l of i t s evidentiary submission[s] properly admitted into e v i d e n c e . [Mr. Green] f u r t h e r c o n c e d e d t h a t [he] d i d n o t have any a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e t o p r e s e n t a t t h a t 17 2111157 t i m e . [ M o u n t a i n L a k e s ] moved t o s t r i k e [Mr. G r e e n ' s ] j u r y demand, m a k i n g i t c l e a r t h a t [ M o u n t a i n L a k e s ] w a n t e d t h e t r i a l j u d g e t o make a l l f i n d i n g s o f f a c t . Thus, i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s s u e d i t s final order based on c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a l l the e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d by [ M o u n t a i n L a k e s ] i n s u p p o r t o f i t s summary j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . " Mountain Lakes' postjudgment motion was denied, and this q u e s t i o n p r e s e n t e d i s whether the ore tenus appeal followed. Discussion The initial r u l e i s a p p l i c a b l e t o our r e v i e w of the f i n a l order: "'"The o r e t e n u s r u l e i s g r o u n d e d upon t h e p r i n c i p l e t h a t when t h e t r i a l c o u r t h e a r s o r a l t e s t i m o n y i t has an o p p o r t u n i t y t o e v a l u a t e t h e demeanor and c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s . " H a l l v. Mazzone , 486 So. 2d 408, 410 ( A l a . 1986) . The rule applies to " d i s p u t e d i s s u e s of f a c t , " whether the d i s p u t e i s based entirely upon o r a l testimony o r upon a combination of oral testimony and documentary e v i d e n c e . B o r n v. C l a r k , 662 So. 2d 669, 672 ( A l a . 1995).'" Y e a g e r v. L u c y , 998 So. 2d 460, 463 ( A l a . 2008) ( q u o t i n g Reed v. B o a r d o f T r s . f o r A l a b a m a S t a t e U n i v . , 778 So. 2d 791, (Ala. 342 360 2000), q u o t i n g i n t u r n R a i d t v. C r a n e , 2d 358, (Ala. 1977)). No o r a l t e s t i m o n y was T h e r e f o r e , the ore tenus of So. 795 fact in this taken at the October 24 p r o c e e d i n g . r u l e does n o t a p p l y t o any case: 18 findings 2111157 "'"[W]hen a t r i a l judge's r u l i n g i s not based s u b s t a n t i a l l y on t e s t i m o n y p r e s e n t e d l i v e to the t r i a l j u d g e , r e v i e w o f f a c t u a l i s s u e s i s de n o v o . " ' Goodwyn, M i l l s & Cawood, I n c . v. M a r k e l I n s . Co., 911 So. 2d 1044, 1047 ( A l a . 2004) ( q u o t i n g R o g e r s F o u n d . R e p a i r , I n c . v. P o w e l l , 748 So. 2d 869, 871 (Ala. 1999))." Vest v. Although is Vest, 978 So. 759, 762 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006) . t h e r e i s no t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e O c t o b e r 24 h e a r i n g , i t apparent from the g i v e n the i m p r e s s i o n a 2d final decision materials that final that the trial court was at t h a t h e a r i n g t h a t both p a r t i e s wanted to had order be rendered been solely submitted L a k e s ' summary-judgment m o t i o n . in on the support evidentiary of Stated otherwise, Mountain the trial c o u r t p r o c e e d e d as i f t h e r e were no g e n u i n e i s s u e s o f m a t e r i a l fact as to statements any or issue in the case, representations presumably 1 1 made by the based parties upon at the h e a r i n g . Mountain Lakes a s s e r t e d i n i t s postjudgment motion, and i t continues for a l l p u r p o s e s t h a t t h e r e were no d i s p u t e d f a c t s ; r a t h e r , i t asserted, and t o a s s e r t on continues to appeal, assert on t h a t i t d i d not appeal, e n t i t l e d t o a judgment i n i t s f a v o r or a t r i a l that on t h e agree i t was merits. The o r e t e n u s r u l e a l s o does n o t a p p l y t o j u d g m e n t s d e c i d e d on u n d i s p u t e d f a c t s . P h i l p o t v. S t a t e , 843 So. 2d 122, 125 ( A l a . 2002) . 11 19 2111157 As t o t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y , t h e f i n a l o r d e r was r e n d e r e d i n f a v o r o f t h e p a r t y t h a t d i d n o t move f o r summary j u d g m e n t a n d a g a i n s t t h e p a r t y t h a t d i d move f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . its first As argument, M o u n t a i n Lakes a s s e r t s t h a t i t s m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t was due t o be g r a n t e d . Ordinarily, a party may n o t a p p e a l f r o m t h e d e n i a l o f a summary-judgment m o t i o n . Parsons 1988) Steel, I n c . v . B e a s l e y , 522 So. 2d 253, 258 ("An o r d e r d e n y i n g summary j u d g m e n t i s i n t e r l o c u t o r y a n d nonappealable."). are (Ala. filed Where c r o s s - m o t i o n s f o r a summary j u d g m e n t i n the t r i a l c o u r t , t h e p a r t y whose m o t i o n was n o t g r a n t e d i s e n t i t l e d t o have t h a t m o t i o n r e v i e w e d on an a p p e a l from t h e g r a n t o f t h e opponent's motion: "[An] appeal from a pretrial final judgment disposing of a l l claims i n the case (as d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m a R u l e 5 4 ( b ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] summary j u d g m e n t d i s p o s i n g o f f e w e r t h a n a l l c l a i m s ) entitles the [appellant], f o r purposes of our r e v i e w , t o r a i s e i s s u e s b a s e d upon t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s adverse rulings, including the denial of i t s summary-judgment m o t i o n s . See A l a . R. App. P. 4(a)(1)." L l o y d N o l a n d Found. v . C i t y o f F a i r f i e l d H e a l t h c a r e A u t h . , 83 7 So. 2d 2 5 3 , 263 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . 20 2111157 A summary j u d g m e n t m o t i o n may be g r a n t e d nonmovant fully only when i n favor a l l p a r t i e s had the o p p o r t u n i t y of a t o be h e a r d on a l l r e l e v a n t i s s u e s : "[The supreme c o u r t ] h a s p r e v i o u s l y h e l d t h a t 'a t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d n o t s u a s p o n t e e n t e r a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f a p a r t y who h a s n o t f i l e d a m o t i o n s e e k i n g s u c h a j u d g m e n t w i t h o u t a f f o r d i n g "an opportunity to present evidence i n opposition to i t . " ' A l p i n e A s s o c . I n d u s . S e r v s . v. S m i t h e r m a n , 897 So. 2d 391, 395 ( A l a . 2004) ( q u o t i n g Moore v. P r u d e n t i a l R e s i d e n t i a l S e r v s . L t d . P ' s h i p , 849 So. 2d 914, 927 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ) . T h i s i s b e c a u s e ' " [ o ] n e purpose of the procedural r i g h t s t o n o t i c e and h e a r i n g u n d e r R u l e 5 6 ( c ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] i s t o allow t h e nonmoving party the opportunity to d i s c o v e r and t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e o p p o s i n g t h e m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t . " ' Moore, 849 So. 2d a t 927 ( q u o t i n g Van K n i g h t v. Smoker, 778 So. 2d 801, 805 (Ala. 2 0 0 0 ) ) . We have r e v e r s e d summary j u d g m e n t s when n e i t h e r p a r t y h a d f i l e d a summary-judgment m o t i o n a n d a l s o when t h e l o s i n g p a r t y h a d no n o t i c e t h a t a summary j u d g m e n t c o u l d be f o r t h c o m i n g a n d no opportunity t o present evidence i n opposition to the summary j u d g m e n t . See, e . g . , Moore, 849 So. 2d a t 927 ('Because R u l e 56 r e q u i r e s , a t t h e l e a s t , t h a t t h e n o n m o v i n g p a r t y be p r o v i d e d w i t h n o t i c e o f a summary-judgment m o t i o n a n d be g i v e n an o p p o r t u n i t y to p r e s e n t evidence i n o p p o s i t i o n t o i t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t v i o l a t e s t h e r i g h t s o f t h e nonmoving p a r t y i f i t e n t e r s a summary j u d g m e n t on i t s own, w i t h o u t any m o t i o n h a v i n g been f i l e d b y a p a r t y . ' ) . ' " R u l e 56 ' i s n o t p r e f a c e d upon w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e o p p o s i n g party may s u c c e s s f u l l y defend against summary j u d g m e n t , [ b u t ] i t does r e q u i r e t h a t t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o d e f e n d be g i v e n ' " ' ( q u o t i n g Van K n i g h t , 778 So. 2d a t 806, q u o t i n g i n t u r n T h a r p v . U n i o n S t a t e Bank, 364 So. 2d 335, 338 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 7 8 ) ) , a l t h o u g h t h e r i g h t t o n o t i c e o f a p o t e n t i a l summary j u d g m e n t may be w a i v e d . See i d . " 21 2111157 G i l e s v. B r o o k w o o d H e a l t h S e r v s , I n c . , 5 So. 3d 533, 555 ( A l a . 2008). In t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , M o u n t a i n L a k e s a r g u e s t h a t i t was n o t fully heard on a l l r e l e v a n t presented additional issues and t h a t evidence at a t r i a l i t would have o r , presumably, i n r e s p o n s e t o a summary-judgment m o t i o n h a d one b e e n f i l e d Mr. by Green. Both s i d e s argued, and t h e t r i a l legal principles court agreed, that the s e t o u t i n Haney's C h a p e l U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h v. U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h , 716 So. 2d 1156 ( A l a . 1998) are applicable dispute over decision by relationship i n this the ownership members with case. of That of Haney's case real involved property Chapel to a similar following dissolve the U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t Church. a their The p r i m a r y d e e d a t i s s u e i n t h a t c a s e d e s c r i b e d t h e g r a n t e e s as " T r u s t e e s f o r . . . H a n e y ' s C h a p e l , t h e i r s u c c e s s o r s i n o f f i c e and a s s i g n s . " Id. a t 1158-59. T h e r e was no m e n t i o n o f a d e n o m i n a t i o n i n t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of the grantees. F o l l o w i n g a t r i a l t e s t i m o n y and o t h e r e x t r i n s i c a t which evidence of the i n t e n t g r a n t o r o f t h e d e e d was p r e s e n t e d , t h e t r i a l f a v o r of the U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t Church. 22 court oral of the found i n On a p p e a l , t h e supreme 2111157 c o u r t s e t o u t t h e a p p l i c a b l e l e g a l p r i n c i p l e s t o be a p p l i e d t o such disputes: "[W]e n o t e t h a t c i v i l c o u r t s have g e n e r a l a u t h o r i t y t o r e s o l v e c h u r c h p r o p e r t y d i s p u t e s ; however, t h e F i r s t Amendment t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n p r o h i b i t s a c o u r t ' s r e s o l v i n g p r o p e r t y d i s p u t e s on the basis of r e l i g i o u s practice or doctrine. P r e s b y t e r i a n C h u r c h v . Mary E l i z a b e t h B l u e H u l l M e m o r i a l P r e s b y t e r i a n C h u r c h , 393 U.S. 440, 449, 89 S. C t . 601, 21 L. E d . 2d 658 ( 1 9 6 9 ) ; J o n e s v . W o l f , 443 U.S. 595, 602, 99 S. C t . 3020, 61 L. E d . 2d 775 ( 1 9 7 9 ) . A l a b a m a c o u r t s have a d o p t e d t h e ' n e u t r a l p r i n c i p l e s o f l a w ' a p p r o a c h a p p l i e d i n H u l l , 393 U.S. a t 449, 89 S. C t . 601, a n d w i l l c o n s i d e r , i n p u r e l y s e c u l a r terms, t h e language o f t h e deeds, t h e c h a r t e r o f t h e l o c a l c h u r c h , any a p p l i c a b l e s t a t e s t a t u t e s , a n d any r e l e v a n t p r o v i s i o n s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e d i s c i p l i n e o f t h e n a t i o n a l c h u r c h as a means o f adjudicating the dispute. Trinity Presbyterian C h u r c h o f Montgomery v. T a n k e r s l e y , 374 So. 2d 861, 866 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) ; [ A f r i c a n M e t h o d i s t E p i s c o p a l Z i o n C h u r c h o f A m e r i c a , I n c . v.] Z i o n H i l l [Methodist C h u r c h , I n c . , 534 So.2d [224] a t 225 [ ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) ] . " Id. a t 1158. A f t e r applying these p r i n c i p l e s t o the evidence produced at t r i a l , the t h e supreme c o u r t r e v e r s e d United would Methodist support intended only t h e judgment i n f a v o r o f Church because, a finding that t o convey t h e p r o p e r t y i t held, the evidence the grantor o f t h e deed to the trustees C h a p e l and n o t t o t h e d e n o m i n a t i o n . o f Haney's The supreme c o u r t d i d n o t f i n d t h e d e e d t o be u n a m b i g u o u s ; i n s t e a d , i t h e l d t h e e v i d e n c e 23 2111157 presented at t r i a l was insufficient to f i n d i n favor of the Central Alabama denomination. In t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , Mr. C o n f e r e n c e o f t h e AME 2d 1013 citing Z i o n C h u r c h i n A m e r i c a v. Crum, 746 ( A l a . C i v . App. c a n n o t be Green, 1999), awarded ownership argues o f any p r o p e r t y t o any organization." 10A-20-2.03(a), 22), Lakes [an] i n t e n t t o c o n v e y h i g h e r c h u r c h body, The words " c l e a r l y s t a t e [ s ] " A l a . Code 1975 Mountain r e a l p r o p e r t y u n l e s s the deed t o t h a t p r o p e r t y " c l e a r l y s t a t e [ s ] [the] that So. denomination, or are taken from § (formerly c o d i f i e d at § 10-4¬ a s t a t u t e p r o v i d i n g an i n c o r p o r a t e d l o c a l c h u r c h c e r t a i n protections statute regarding the ownership of r e a l p r o p e r t y . provides: "(a) U n l e s s o t h e r w i s e c l e a r l y s t a t e d i n t h e d e e d or other instrument under which any church c o r p o r a t i o n o r g a n i z e d under t h i s a r t i c l e derives t i t l e o r u n l e s s a f t e r w a r d s a p p r o v e d by a m a j o r i t y o f the a d u l t members o f t h e c o n g r e g a t i o n o f t h e c h u r c h a t a m e e t i n g h e l d a f t e r announcement f r o m t h e p u l p i t of t h e c h u r c h a t l e a s t s e v e n days f r o m t h e d a t e o f the announcement, t h e c h u r c h c o r p o r a t i o n , w h e t h e r h e r e t o f o r e o r h e r e a f t e r o r g a n i z e d and i n c o r p o r a t e d u n d e r t h i s a r t i c l e , s h a l l be, and s h a l l r e m a i n , a d i s t i n c t and i n d e p e n d e n t c h u r c h c o r p o r a t i o n free f r o m t h e r e g u l a t i o n and c o n t r o l o f any h i g h e r c h u r c h body, d e n o m i n a t i o n , or o t h e r o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h w h i c h i t i s now, o r h e r e a f t e r , a s s o c i a t e d o r a f f i l i a t e d i n s o f a r as t h e management, c o n t r o l , d i s p o s i t i o n , o r a l i e n a t i o n of i t s r e a l p r o p e r t y i s concerned." 24 That 2111157 (Emphasis The added.) local The supreme c o u r t a p p l i e d f o r m e r § 10-4-22 and a f f i r m e d t h e t r i a l court's conclusion property c h u r c h i n Crum was that at the deed issue denomination. incorporated. d i d not was "clearly intended I d . a t 1017. to be state" conveyed that the to the I n c o n t r a s t , t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t Oak G r o v e M e t h o d i s t Church was incorporated; r a t i o n a l e i s not This case therefore, the "clearly state[s]" applicable. is similar to Ex parte Cental Alabama Conference A f r i c a n M e t h o d i s t E p i s c o p a l Zion Church i n America, 860 So. 2d 865 of certain ( A l a . 2003), i n which a d i s p u t e over ownership real property followed the F r a n k l i n Church to d i s a f f i l i a t e AME Zion Church. a decision by members of from a denomination, the T h r e e deeds i n v o l v i n g t h e same p a r c e l were c o n s i d e r e d : a deed from the o r i g i n a l g r a n t o r t o " ' T r u s t e e s ' " ; of Franklin Church;" a later deed from the "'trustees F r a n k l i n C h u r c h ' " t o t h e " ' T r u s t e e s o f t h e F r a n k l i n AME of Zion C h u r c h ' " ; and a f i n a l d e e d e x e c u t e d j u s t p r i o r t o t h e v o t e t o disaffiliate to the f r o m t h e " ' T r u s t e e s o f F r a n k l i n AME "'Trustees of Franklin 25 Church.'" Id. Zion Church'" at 866. In 2111157 reversing a summary judgment that h a d been entered by t r i a l c o u r t i n f a v o r o f t h e F r a n k l i n C h u r c h , t h e supreme held: "[The] deeds a r e ambiguous and a l l o w f o r d i f f e r i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s as t o t h e o w n e r s h i p o f t h e p r o p e r t y . Unlike Haney's Chapel and Crum, there i s no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t the g r a n t o r s i n t e n d e d t o convey the p r o p e r t y t o t h e l o c a l c h u r c h and t o e x c l u d e t h e h i e r a r c h i c a l church. " I n b o t h Haney's C h a p e l and Crum, e x t r i n s i c e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t an o r e t e n u s h e a r i n g h e l p e d d e t e r m i n e t h e i n t e n t o f t h e r e l e v a n t d e e d s . 716 So. 2d a t 1157, 746 So. 2d a t 1014. No s u c h h e a r i n g was c o n d u c t e d i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e . F u r t h e r , t h e AME Z i o n Church presented evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t F r a n k l i n Church, throughout i t s history, has accepted b e n e f i t s f r o m t h e AME Z i o n C h u r c h . The AME Zion C h u r c h has p r o v i d e d p a s t o r s , t h e p a s t o r s ' h e a l t h insurance and retirement benefits, worship materials, and f i n a n c i a l assistance i n certain s i t u a t i o n s . F r a n k l i n C h u r c h has f o l l o w e d t h e Book o f Discipline, i t has been known throughout the community as an AME Z i o n member c h u r c h , and i t has f o l l o w e d t h e c u s t o m s and p o l i c i e s o f t h e AME Z i o n C h u r c h . These f a c t s s u p p o r t t h e C e n t r a l Alabama Conference's c l a i m that a h i e r a r c h i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s b e t w e e n t h e AME Z i o n C h u r c h and F r a n k l i n Church. In [ A f r i c a n Methodist E p i s c o p a l Zion Church o f A m e r i c a , I n c . v.] Z i o n H i l l [ M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h , I n c . ] , t h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a t when n a t i o n a l and l o c a l churches have participated in a longstanding h i e r a r c h a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , t h e l o c a l c h u r c h may n o t u n i l a t e r a l l y s e v e r t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p . 534 So. 2d [224] a t 228 [ ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ] . "The summary j u d g m e n t p r o h i b i t s t h e C e n t r a l A l a b a m a C o n f e r e n c e f r o m p r e s e n t i n g e v i d e n c e a t an o r e t e n u s h e a r i n g ( s u c h as was h e l d i n b o t h Haney's C h a p e l and Crum) t o h e l p d e f i n e t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e 26 the court 2111157 deeds i n q u e s t i o n . 716 So. 2d a t 1157, 746 So. 2d a t 1014. In such a h e a r i n g , the t r i a l c o u r t would f o l l o w t h e ' n e u t r a l - p r i n c i p l e s - o f - l a w ' a p p r o a c h and e x a m i n e t h e d e e d s , t h e Book o f D i s c i p l i n e , and o t h e r extrinsic evidence to help settle the current p r o p e r t y d i s p u t e . See Crum, 746 So. 2d a t 1016. "... S p e c i f i c a l l y , a d i s p u t e e x i s t s as t o t h e i n t e n t of the i n i t i a l g r a n t o r s of the p r o p e r t y : whether they i n t e n d e d to convey the p r o p e r t y to the F r a n k l i n C h u r c h t o t h e e x c l u s i o n o f any n a t i o n a l church or whether they intended t o convey the p r o p e r t y t o t h e AME Zion Church. L i k e w i s e , the ' t r u s t c l a u s e ' i n t h e Book o f D i s c i p l i n e , as i t r e l a t e s t o the [second] deed deeding the p r o p e r t y t o t h e ' T r u s t e e s o f t h e F r a n k l i n AME Zion Church,' c r e a t e s a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t as t o who i s t h e t r u e p r o p e r t y owner." Id. a t 868-69. Likewise, Church, found held 860 So. certain that the [denomination] hearing to i n Ex 2d parte A f r i c a n Methodist Episcopal Zion 874 ( A l a . 2003), supreme court church property 870, deeds t o dismissal from of the presenting ( s u c h as t h o s e the t o be complaint evidence h e l d i n both ambiguous "prohibits at an ore Haney's C h a p e l and and the tenus Crum) h e l p d e f i n e the meaning of the conveyances i n q u e s t i o n . " Mountain Lakes recognizes that i f an ambiguity exists r e g a r d i n g t h e i n t e n t o f t h e g r a n t o r s b a s e d on t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of the grantees as a m a t t e r i n the deeds, i t i s not e n t i t l e d t o a judgment of law i n i t s f a v o r . 27 I t f u r t h e r contends t h a t i f 2111157 there is because an ambiguity, the final order must i t i s e n t i t l e d t o be h e a r d f u r t h e r . be reversed A l l t h r e e deeds use t h e t e r m " M e t h o d i s t " i n t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e g r a n t e e s . B a s e d on Ex p a r t e C e n t r a l A l a b a m a C o n f e r e n c e , we a g r e e t h a t an ambiguity e x i s t s . B e c a u s e M o u n t a i n L a k e s has e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t it h e a r d " on a l l i s s u e s , was final may to may of not "fully o r d e r i n f a v o r o f Mr. Green must r e v e r s e t h e so t h a t e x t r i n s i c be i n t r o d u c e d and c o n s i d e r e d . us by t h e p a r t i e s , we 1 2 evidence From t h e r e c o r d p r e s e n t e d some o f t h e f a c t u a l d i s p u t e s r e m a i n i n g i n c l u d e , but are not n e c e s s a r i l y l i m i t e d t o , the i n t e n t i o n t h e g r a n t o r s i n e a c h d e e d and l a n g u a g e n o t e d i n Deed no. 2. import of the "additional" Unless i t i s determined through a p r o p e r l y p l e a d e d and s u p p o r t e d summary-judgment m o t i o n t h e r e a r e no g e n u i n e of the ownership i s s u e s of m a t e r i a l f a c t , question shall be b a s e d on " t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e d e e d s , church, ... and any relevant resolved, the after resolution a the c h a r t e r of the provisions that trial, local contained i n the d i s c i p l i n e of the n a t i o n a l church," to the e x t e n t a p p l i c a b l e . We n o t e t h a t M o u n t a i n L a k e s ' m o t i o n t o s t r i k e t h e j u r y demand f i l e d by Mr. G r e e n r e m a i n s p e n d i n g . W h e t h e r Mr. G r e e n i s e n t i t l e d t o have a j u r y r e s o l v e any f a c t u a l d i s p u t e s i n t h i s c a s e i s a m a t t e r more a p p r o p r i a t e l y a d d r e s s e d i n i t i a l l y by t h e t r i a l c o u r t on remand. 12 28 2111157 Haney's C h a p e l , 716 So. 2d a t 1 1 5 8 . Lakes has a l s o r a i s e d q u e s t i o n s 13 We n o t e t h a t regarding Mountain the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l structure of the l o c a l church, whether the l o c a l trustees, a n d t h e c a p a c i t y o r s t a t u s o f Mr. G r e e n t o p r o c e e d as a p r o p e r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e ownership c h u r c h has t o b r i n g t h e c a s e o r t o be a w a r d e d o f any p r o p e r t y . Mr. Green contends that these i s s u e s were n e v e r i n d i s p u t e . Mountain Lakes p o i n t s out t h a t these are, i n f a c t , issues: contested " I n i t s v e r y f i r s t answer t o Mr. G r e e n ' s c o m p l a i n t , as w e l l as i n i t s a n s w e r t o h i s amended c o m p l a i n t , [Mountain Lakes] a s s e r t e d t h a t , t o i t s knowledge: (i) there i s no s u c h e n t i t y as t h e Oak G r o v e M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h ; ( i i ) t h e r e i s no p r o o f t h a t [Mr. G r e e n ] h a d a u t h o r i t y t o a c t f o r o r on b e h a l f o f t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s g r o u p , o r e v e n t h a t any o r g a n i z a t i o n o r association purportedly known as t h e 'Oak G r o v e M e t h o d i s t Church' e x i s t s ; and ( i i i ) t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s c o m p l a i n t f a i l e d t o i d e n t i f y any p e r s o n o r p e r s o n s p u r p o r t e d l y r e p r e s e n t e d b y [Mr. G r e e n ] . " I t may be t h a t M o u n t a i n L a k e s i s u l t i m a t e l y n o t e n t i t l e d to ownership of the r e a l property, b u t i t has d e m o n s t r a t e d H a n e y ' s C h a p e l l i s t s any a p p l i c a b l e s t a t e s t a t u t e s as an a d d i t i o n a l p o s s i b l e f a c t o r t o be c o n s i d e r e d . Because there i s no e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t l y i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e l o c a l c h u r c h i s i n c o r p o r a t e d a n d b e c a u s e no s t a t u t e s have b e e n c i t e d b y t h e p a r t i e s , t h i s a d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r w o u l d n o t be a p p l i c a b l e . 716 So. 2d a t 1158 n. 4 ( n o t i n g t h a t b e c a u s e Haney's C h a p e l was n o t i n c o r p o r a t e d , t h e r e were no s t a t e s t a t u t e s t o a p p l y ) ; a c c o r d Ex p a r t e C e n t r a l A l a b a m a C o n f e r e n c e , 860 So. 2d a t 868 n. 2. 13 29 2111157 that i t i s entitled Therefore, the f i n a l t o be heard order i s reversed, remanded f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s . further on the issues. and t h e case is T h e r e i s no l e g a l b a s i s f o r an a w a r d o f a t t o r n e y f e e s on a p p e a l as r e q u e s t e d b y Mr. G r e e n ; therefore, that request i s denied. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n J . , c o n c u r . Thomas a n d Moore, J J . , concur writings. 30 i n the r e s u l t , without

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.