MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Aug 18 2017, 5:42 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES
Diana C. Bauer William T. Hopkins, Jr.
Bauer Legal LLC Mark D. Scudder
Fort Wayne, Indiana Sheryl McGrath
Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Fort Wayne, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
John Johnson, et al., August 18, 2017
Appellants-Defendants, Court of Appeals Case No.
02A05-1610-MI-2423
v. Appeal from the Allen Superior
Court
Catherine Barnes, et al., The Honorable Craig J. Bobay,
Appellees-Plaintiffs. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
02D02-1512-MI-1224
Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1610-MI-2423 | August 18, 2017 Page 1 of 8
Case Summary
[1] John Johnson (“Johnson”), Percival Moore (“Moore”), and Harold Wims
(“Wims”), three former trustees of Pilgrim Baptist Church (“the Church”),
appeal following the dismissal of a complaint for injunctive relief and damages
filed by Catherine Barnes and thirty other members of the Church. Johnson,
Moore, and Wims articulate a single issue for review: whether the trial court
erred in removing them from their positions as trustees while not
simultaneously removing as trustees Richard Stevenson (“Stevenson”) and
Rodney Haywood (“Haywood”), pending a new election. We dismiss.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] The Church was formed in 1919, in Fort Wayne, Indiana. The Church was to
be governed by Baptist Church Covenants, in relevant part providing:
We engage, therefore, by the aid of the Holy Spirit, to walk
together in Christian love; to strive for the advancement of this
church in knowledge and holiness; to give it a place in our
affections, prayers and services above every organization of
human origin; to sustain its worship, ordinances, discipline and
doctrine; to contribute cheerfully and regularly, as God has
prospered us, towards it expenses, for the support of a faithful
and evangelical ministry among us, the relief of the poor and the
spread of the Gospel throughout the world. In case of difference
of opinion in the church, we will strive to avoid a contentious
spirit, and if we cannot unanimously agree, we will cheerfully
recognize the right of the majority to govern.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1610-MI-2423 | August 18, 2017 Page 2 of 8
(App. at 48.) In 1949, the Church was incorporated in the State of Indiana.
The Articles of Incorporation (“the Articles”) were filed with the Indiana
Secretary of State in 1949, and were amended in 1985. The Articles require an
annual election on the third Friday of December. The membership is to elect
five trustees, to serve staggered two year-terms.
[3] Notwithstanding the election provision, the Church had no election of trustees
from 1983 to 2014. Rather, the pastor of the Church appointed trustees and
deacons.
[4] On July 26, 2013, Stevenson, Haywood, Moore and Wims filed a Complaint
against the Church, requesting the appointment of a receiver, a compulsory
meeting of members and election of trustees, and adoption of Church by-laws.
On June 24, 2014, the trial court ordered that an election of trustees occur on or
before July 26, 2014. The order also required the newly elected trustees to
propose Church by-laws, to become effective upon membership approval.
[5] Two pastors of other Baptist Churches and the City of Fort Wayne Chief of
Police acted as election commissioners for conducting an election of five
trustees. In July of 2014, Johnson, Moore, Stevenson, Haywood, and Wims
were elected as trustees. By-laws were adopted on July 30, 2014. On October
21, 2014, a special judge entered an Order of Final Judgment, stating that the
election of trustees and adoption of Church by-laws had occurred.
[6] On December 22, 2015, thirty-one members of the Church (“Plaintiffs-
Members”) filed a Complaint for Injunction and Damages, naming as
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1610-MI-2423 | August 18, 2017 Page 3 of 8
defendants Johnson, Moore, and Wims. As amended, the Complaint sought a
permanent injunction requiring that Johnson, Moore, and Wims (“the
Defendants”) cease to act as Church trustees or directors, an order for access to
Church books and records, and unspecified damages for a breach of duty of
good faith. The Complaint included allegations that the December 2015
election had not been conducted; the validity of the new by-laws was in
question due to a conflict with the Articles (with the Articles providing that
three of the initially-elected trustees were to serve two year terms and two were
to serve for one year, and the by-laws providing for five-year terms for each of
the five trustees); the Defendants had denied the membership access to Church
books; the Defendants had threatened to dis-fellowship some of the
membership; the Defendants had hired a construction company owned by
Wims to perform Church construction work; and the Defendants had mis-
represented the Church membership data. Finally, the Complaint alleged that
the Church membership, in a special meeting, had voted to oust the Defendants
from their roles as trustees.
[7] On May 3, 2016, the Plaintiffs-Members filed a Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment. The trial court conducted a hearing on May 26, 2016 and, on June
23, 2016, granted the motion. The order provided in part:
It is undisputed that Pilgrim Baptist Church is a nonprofit
corporation governed by the Indiana Nonprofit Corporation Act
of 1991, which is codified at Indiana Code § 23-17-1-1. . . .
Defendants do not dispute that there is a conflict between the
Articles of Incorporation and the newly adopted Bylaws. . . .
[T]he Court concludes that the Articles of Incorporation,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1610-MI-2423 | August 18, 2017 Page 4 of 8
paragraph 3, controls. The Court notes that if the majority of the
members believe that a trustee should serve a term of five (5)
years, than [sic] the Pilgrim Baptist Church is free to amend its
Articles of Incorporation. However, under Indiana law, bylaws
are not meant to supersede the articles of incorporation, but
instead, are created to supplement them.
Accordingly, the Court now Orders the three (3) Defendants
(John Johnson, Percival Moore, and Harold Wims) are
immediately removed as trustees of the Pilgrim Baptist Church;
and the Court Orders the Pilgrim Baptist Church to hold a new
election for these three (3) positions to result in conformity with
the Articles of Incorporation. …
Additionally, the Court concludes that the election process shall
be governed by a committee (“Election Committee”) consisting
[of] one (1) church member chosen by the Plaintiffs, one (1)
church member chosen by the Defendants, and the two (2)
remaining (unchallenged) trustees. . . .
An election for the remaining two (2) currently held
(unchallenged) trustee positions must occur in accordance with
the Articles of Incorporation in December of 2016.
(Appealed Order at 5-8.)
[8] On September 19, 2016, Plaintiffs-Members filed a Motion for Voluntary
Dismissal Without Prejudice. The trial court conducted a hearing on
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1610-MI-2423 | August 18, 2017 Page 5 of 8
September 21, 2016 and granted the motion for dismissal two days later. 1 This
appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[9] The Defendants argue that it was “improper for the Trial Court to interject itself
into Church affairs by removing [them].” Appellants’ Brief at 10. Additionally,
the Defendants assert that “it makes no logical sense for the Trial Court to
allow two trustees to remain but the other three immediately removed,
particularly when all five were elected by the congregation at the same time.”
Appellants’ Brief at 12. They request that this Court “reinstate them to their
duly elected positions [as] Trustees.” Appellants’ Brief at 13.
[10] We acknowledge the autonomy of religious institutions has long been respected
by the State of Indiana. In 1893, our Indiana Supreme Court explained:
Ever since the complete separation of church and state in the
crowning glory of civil government among men by the
constitution of the United States declaring that “congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” which was followed by
similar provisions in most of the state constitutions, and
especially our own, the law has known no religious creed, no
religious opinion, no religious doctrine, no standard of belief in
matters pertaining to religion. Our state constitution, framed by
wise men, and adopted by the people, has still more securely
placed us out of the reach of those fierce and bloody struggles
1
The trial court also granted Wims’ motion to dismiss a counter-claim that he had filed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1610-MI-2423 | August 18, 2017 Page 6 of 8
arising out of a difference in religious opinion in former times by
declaring that “all men shall be secured in their natural right to
worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own
consciences,” and that “no law shall in any case whatever control
the free exercise and enjoyment of religious opinions, or interfere
with the rights of conscience,” and that “no preference shall be
given by law to any creed, religious society, or mode of worship;
and no man shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any
place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, against his
consent.” . . . In other words, the law allows every one to believe
as he pleases, and practice that belief so long as that practice does
not interfere with the equal rights of others.
Smith v. Pedigo, 145 Ind. 361, 33 N.E. 777, 778-79 (Ind. 1893). Consistent
therewith, governmental intrusion in matters of religion is circumscribed by
Indiana Code Section 34-13-9-8 (a governmental entity may not substantially
burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of
general applicability, and a governmental entity imposing a substantial burden
must demonstrate that the action is in furtherance of a compelling
governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that
compelling governmental interest).
[11] However, we do not reach the merits of the Defendants’ claim that the trial
court unduly interfered and interjected itself into Church business or the merits
of the Defendants’ alternate suggestion that the trial court may well have
interfered more aggressively and removed each of the five former trustees at
once. This is because the ultimate issue – whether the Defendants should be
reinstated as trustees – is now moot.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1610-MI-2423 | August 18, 2017 Page 7 of 8
[12] When the primary issue within the case has been ended or settled, or in some
manner disposed of, so as to render it unnecessary for the court to decide the
question involved, mootness arises. C.J. v. State, 74 N.E.3d 572, 575 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2017). In other words, when a court is not able to render effective relief to
a party, the case is deemed moot and subject to dismissal. Id. Here, the matter
of whether Johnson, Moore, and Wims should serve as trustees has been
decided. Plaintiff-Members assert, and the Defendants do not deny, that two
successive trustee elections have taken place. The Defendants were not elected
to serve.
[13] We reject the Defendants’ contention that the appeal is not moot because the
fact that the elections occurred was not a fact designated to the trial court in
summary judgment proceedings. That is because the relevant time frame for
determining mootness is in the present, when we must look to whether the
requested relief can be granted. This secular institution is unable to provide the
Defendants with that which they seek, the opportunity to serve as trustees of the
Church; instead, who shall serve was determined by a majority of the
congregants of their institution.
[14] Dismissed.
Baker, J., and Altice, J. concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1610-MI-2423 | August 18, 2017 Page 8 of 8
John Johnson v. Catherine Barnes (mem. dec.)
Combined Opinion