DEACON WILLIE SPARKS v. PASTOR NOLAN M. DOBY

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

 
 

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is only binding on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

DEACON WILLIE SPARKS,

DEACON ROOSEVELT HUGGINS,

DEACON WILLIE McCAY,

DEACON ALVIN EDWARDS,

DEACON BENJAMIN MITCHELL,

SR.,

Plaintiffs-Respondents,

v.

PASTOR NOLAN M. DOBY,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________

September 21, 2016

 

Argued September 13, 2016 Decided

Before Judges Reisner and Koblitz.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Hudson County, Docket No. C-24-14.

Theodore Campbell argued the cause for appellant.

Marvin T. Braker argued the cause for respondents.

PER CURIAM

This case involves a dispute over the governance of the St. John's Baptist Church (Church), an autonomous, congregational church located in Jersey City. Defendant, Pastor Nolan M. Doby (defendant or the Pastor), appeals from a February 9, 2015 order granting partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs, five of the Church's deacons.1 We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Hector R. Velazquez in his oral opinion of January 23, 2015 and his written opinion accompanying the February 9, 2015 order. We add the following comments.

After receiving authorization at an earlier congregational meeting, plaintiffs conducted a vote on September 7, 2013, to determine whether the congregation would terminate defendant's services as pastor. Also, on September 7, 2013, defendant convened a separate meeting on his own retention, attended by his supporters, who voted to retain him.2 Thereafter, at the same meeting and without prior notice to the congregation, defendant conducted a vote to dismiss plaintiffs from their offices as deacons.

The trial judge invalidated the results of the September 7 meeting convened by the Pastor. However, the deacons did not disclose the result of the September 7 vote they conducted on the Pastor's retention, and the trial judge did not order a new vote on his retention. The deacons did not cross-appeal from that portion of the judge's order. Consequently, the propriety of the vote taken by the deacons is not an issue on this appeal. This appeal solely concerns the legality of the September 7, 2013 meeting held by the Pastor's supporters and the validity of the decisions reached at that meeting (the September 7 Pastor's meeting).

Our review of the motion judge's summary judgment decision is de novo, as is our review of the judge's legal interpretations. Davis v. Brickman Landscaping Ltd., 219 N.J. 395, 405 (2014). We conclude that there were no material facts in dispute and the case was ripe for summary judgment. We agree with Judge Velazquez that the September 7 Pastor's meeting was a nullity, for two reasons. First, on July 27, 2013, the Pastor conducted a meeting concerning the method by which the voting would be conducted on his retention. Article IV, section 1.2(e) of the Church by-laws precludes the Pastor from conducting any meeting concerning his own employment. As a result, the "stand-up" vote taken at the September 7 meeting concerning the Pastor's retention, which followed procedures set at the invalidly-conducted July 27 meeting, was a nullity.

The vote to remove plaintiff deacons, which the Pastor initiated immediately thereafter, was likewise invalid. Pursuant to Article 7, section 1.1 of the by-laws, the removal of officers must be recommended by the Pastor and Board of Deacons "during a special meeting called by the Pastor and Board of Deacons." It is clear from this language that the Pastor was not authorized to unilaterally call a special meeting for the purpose of ousting plaintiffs. Article 9 ("Meetings"), section 3 also makes it clear that special meetings require "notification to members before action can be taken." This section precluded the Pastor from spontaneously adding to the agenda of the September 7, 2013 meeting, a previously-unannounced item consisting of a proposed vote to remove plaintiff deacons.

We agree with Judge Velazquez that all of the foregoing conclusions are based on the plain language of the Church's by-laws, applying neutral principles, and do not require interpretation of the Church's religious doctrines. See Solid Rock Baptist Church v. Carlton, 347 N.J. Super. 180, 192-93 (App. Div. 2002). Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.

1 At oral argument, plaintiffs' counsel advised us that Deacon Roosevelt Huggins passed away while this appeal was pending.

2 While this vote was being taken, the meeting was chaired by an individual who was not a Church officer and was not authorized by the Church by-laws to conduct a special meeting.