Filed 2/5/20 Orange Cove Full Gospel Temple v. Leeper CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

ORANGE COVE FULL GOSPEL TEMPLE et al.,

Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v.

TIMOTHY L. LEEPER et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

F075704

(Super. Ct. No. 14CECG03480)

OPINION

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Alan M. Simpson, Judge.

Cruser, Mitchell, Novitz, Sanchez, Gaston & Zimet and Landon R. Schwob; Law Offices of David Douglas Doyle and David Douglas Doyle for Defendants and Appellants.

Williams, Brodersen, Pritchett & Burke, Thomas C. Brodersen and Nicholas Ruiz for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

-ooOoo-

INTRODUCTION

Formed in 1938, The Full Gospel Conference of the World, Inc. (Conference) is a religious organization composed in part of a presiding bishop, an executive board, and local assemblies. There does not appear to be any dispute Orange Cove Full Gospel Temple (Orange Cove Temple) was one of Conference’s local assemblies prior to 1998. Whether Orange Cove Temple continued to be so affiliated with Conference thereafter is in question.

Timothy L. Leeper was chosen to be pastor of Orange Cove Temple in 2011. On September 22, 2014, however, Conference revoked Leeper’s ordination and removed him from his position due to his failure to pay tithes per Conference’s bylaws. Afterward, Leeper led a Sunday service; purged numerous parishioners from Orange Cove Temple’s membership roll; dismissed several of Orange Cove Temple’s elected deacons; and had the front entrance of the church padlocked and new locks installed on other doors. Then, via a grant deed executed October 4, 2014, and recorded October 6, 2014, Leeper and his wife Tamra M. Leeper (Ms. Leeper) transferred ownership of Orange Cove Temple’s real property to “Orange Cove Full Gospel Temple, Inc.”

Plaintiffs and respondents Conference and Orange Cove Temple filed a lawsuit against defendants and appellants Leeper, Ms. Leeper, and the newly formed corporation. They alleged defendants unlawfully occupied and refused to surrender Orange Cove Temple’s property and “fraudulently and illegally created, executed, and recorded” the October 2014 grant deed. Plaintiffs asked the superior court to restore immediate possession to Orange Cove Temple; cancel the deed; quiet title; and declare Leeper was bound by Conference’s decision to revoke his ordination and end his pastorate and had no authority to unilaterally expel church members and deacons. Following an abbreviated bench trial, the court ruled in plaintiffs’ favor. Judgment was entered on March 9, 2017.

On appeal, defendants claim Orange Cove Temple became a “separate and distinct independent entity” and Conference could not “terminate” Leeper. They also purport Leeper had the authority to execute the October 2014 grant deed because his dismissal had been improper. We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL HISTORY

I. Conveyance of real property to Orange Cove Temple
II.
Before 1998, Conference owned Orange Cove Temple’s real property. As of 1997, Conference’s bylaws permitted a local assembly to request a grant deed from Conference, subject to certain requirements. These included the following, inter alia:

“1. [The church] must have a church meeting with [its] voting members requesting the[] deed to be released by at least a ⅔ majority of legal voters. [¶] . . . [¶]

“4. Any church requesting the[] deed and desiring to remain under . . . Conference . . . must pay tithes in full to . . . Conference.

“5. Any church requesting the[] deed can receive it and become an affiliated church providing they give . . . Conference a letter stating they choose to. [It] must continue to pay tithes according to [Conference] by-laws and [it] will then continue to have full voting rights.”

Orange Cove Temple submitted a letter dated May 18, 1998, which read, in part:

“At a meeting . . . [w]e the board and members of [Orange Cove] Full Gospel Temple agreed by a Majority Vote. There w[ere] 18 members present and 18 yes votes that we would like to obtain the deed for our church from . . . Conference.

“We would still like to be affiliated with . . . Conference. We agree to abide by the by-laws of . . . Conference. We will continue to pay tithes and still have voting rights . . . as stated in the by-laws.”

Via a corporation grant deed executed June 15, 1998, and recorded August 24, 1998, Conference transferred title to Orange Cove Temple “and [its] Trustees and Successors.”

III. Conference’s revised 2008 bylaws
IV.
As of 2008, Conference’s bylaws provided, inter alia:

“FORM OF GOVERNMENT

“. . . Conference . . . shall always maintain a representative and congregational form of government composed of the following: [¶] 1. The Presiding Bishop [¶] 2. Local Assemblies [¶] 3. The Youth Department [¶] 4. The Missions Department [¶] 5. The Executive Board [¶] 6. Other Affiliated Ministers [¶] 7. Local Governing Boards [¶] . . . [¶]

“ANNUAL CONFERENCE GENERAL BUSINESS MEETING

“All delegates and ministers of . . . Conference shall meet once yearly for the purpose of conducting the business of [Conference] . . . . The time and place for such meeting shall be set by the Executive Board.

“Candidates For Office: All candidates for any office must be present at the General Business Meeting, or contacted before and a written consent be submitted by their Pastor at the General Business Meeting.

“Eligible Voters: All active, licensed, and ordained ministers shall each have one vote. Each church shall be allowed a maximum of three delegates, each delegate casting one vote. . . . [¶] . . . [¶]

“EXECUTIVE BOARD

“Qualifications: The Executive Board shall consist of at least four ordained ministers, including the Presiding Bishop . . . . [¶] . . . [¶]

“Executive Board Rights: Any minister corrupting or defiling [his/her] office and failing to comply with Conference by-laws will be subject to lo[sing] [his/her] license and there will be no respect of persons. This authority will be given to the Executive Board and they may request the Constituency to assist them if necessary. [¶] . . . [¶]

“MINISTERIAL RECOGNITION AND AFFILIATION

“Method of Joining: Application forms obtainable from a local Pastor, the Presiding Bishop, or . . . Conference Headquarters, must be filled out completely and conveyed into the hands of the Presiding Bishop or . . . Conference Headquarters. . . . The applicant must then appear before the Executive Board, or a screening board set up by the Executive Board, for an interview. All applications shall be subject to the final approval of the Executive Board. [¶] . . . [¶]

“DUTIES OF ALL MINISTERS

“Tithes: . . . Conference interprets the word ‘tithe’ to mean one-tenth. We firmly believe and teach that to pay tithes of our income back to God and His work is the sacred duty and privilege of ministers and laymen alike. In as much as God also blesses systematic tithes, all ministers are asked to send the correct portion of their tithes to headquarters each month. Failure to do so for a period of 90 days will cause him/her to automatically be classified as an inactive minister. Restoration to the status of active minister will be at the discretion of the Executive Board after a full understanding is reached in regard to his/her failure.

“Pastors: Shall give 100% of their ministerial tithes and ½ of all their secular tithes to . . . Conference. [¶] . . . [¶]

“Further Duties and Requirements: All ministers shall be amenable to . . . Conference in matters of doctrine and conduct. . . .

“LOCAL CHURCH GOVERNMENT

“Method of Securing A Pastor: . . . Conference secretary shall notify all Conference ministers of a vacancy in an established church. All Conference ministers in good standing shall be allowed to submit their names as candidates. The pastor shall be elected by a 2/3-majority vote of eligible church members. . . . [¶] . . . [¶]

“Church Charters: Each local church shall have their own separate form of government in accordance with general rules and laws of [Conference]. . . . [¶] . . . [¶]

“Church Giving: One-tenth of all tithes and offerings coming into the local assembly shall be sent to . . . Conference Headquarters, to be used for its maintenance and Conference expansion. . . . [¶] . . . [¶]

“CHURCHES SEEKING AFFILIATION

“Regardless of who shall remain the legal owner of it[s] property, any non-Conference church assembly willing to become affiliated with [Conference] and agree to be governed by its Constitution and By-laws, may, upon its application to become united with . . . Conference, be accepted into full fellowship with full voting privileges.

“CLOSE FELLOWSHIP CHURCHES

“Other non-Conference churches who have accepted a Conference minister to serve as their pastor, but who desire[] to maintain their present form of government, may be given full spiritual fellowship with only Conference voting privileges withheld.”

V. Orange Cove Temple’s 2008 bylaws
VI.
In 2008, Orange Cove Temple adopted its own bylaws, which were drafted by Conference’s presiding bishop Nancy McClain. These bylaws provided, inter alia:

“By-Laws

“The Deacon Board and Constituency of . . . Orange Cove [Temple] . . . hereby adopt[] the following complete revision of its By-Laws . . . . These By-Laws are in agreement with . . . Conference By-Laws and fulfill that which is stated under church charters in . . . Conference By-Law book. [¶] . . . [¶]

“ARTICLE II. P[R]EROGATIVES

“Section 1. This fellowship shall have the right to govern itself as an independent fellowship of believers in the Lord Jesus Christ according to the standards of the New Testament Scriptures . . . . [¶] . . . [¶]

“ARTICLE V. MEMBERSHIP [¶] . . . [¶]

“Section 7. Revision of the Membership Roster

“The Pastor and Board [of Deacons] shall be authorized to revise the membership rol[l] of the assembly quarterly, and to remove from the list of active members all names of those who may have become deceased during the year, together with the names of those who may have withdrawn from the fellowship, or who may have fallen into sin and whose lives may have become inconsistent with the standards and teachings of the assembly. If a name is removed for cause, the one whose name is removed shall be notified of the action of the Pastor and Board through the secretary. The decision of the Board shall be considered final. . . . [¶] . . . [¶]

“ARTICLE VI. BOARD OF DEACONS

“The Board of Deacons is chosen to serve the church and therefore shall act in an advisory capacity with the Pastor in all matters pertaining to the assembly and in the ministry of its ordinances. They shall also act in the examination of applicants for membership and in the administration of discipline of the assembly. . . . [¶] . . . [¶]

“Section 2. Quantity

“The Board of Deacons shall consist of not less than four and not more than seven, this number does not include the Pastor. They shall be recommended by the committee and shall be elected to serve as follows: Deacons shall be elected to serve a term of two years. [¶] . . . [¶]

“Section 4. Quorum

“A majority present at any meeting of the Board shall constitute a quorum, provided all the members have been notified to be present. In the even[t] the assembly is temporarily without a Pastor . . . , the Board shall be empowered to provide for its own chairman from its membership [in] order to transact business for the assembly. [¶] . . . [¶]

“ARTICLE VII[.] OFFICERS [¶] . . . [¶]

“Section 1. Pastor (President)

“(a) Duties- The Pastor shall be considered as the spiritual overseer of the assembly and shall direct all of its activities. The Pastor shall be the President of the church and shall act as chairman of all business meetings of the assembly and the Board of Deacons. . . .

“(b) Term of Office- The Pastor shall be elected to serve for an initial term of two years. If he/she is reelected it shall be for another two[-]year term or a term specified by the Board, a vote of confidence will be held every two years. . . .

“(c) Vacancy- The tenure of office of the pastorate shall be terminated by . . . resignation, removal, death, or disqualification. Power is vested in the Board to ask for the resignation of the Pastor at any of its regular business meetings. [¶] . . . [¶]

“ARTICLE XI[.] PROPERTY

“All property of the assembly shall be deeded to the assembly and held in its name[.]

“(a) All property, real or chattel, shall be taken, held, sold, transferred, or conveyed in the corporate name of the assembly[.]

“(b) No real or chattel property of the assembly shall be sold, leased, mortgaged, or otherwise alienated without the same shall have been authorized by at least a two[-]thirds majority of the entire membership[.] [¶] . . . [¶]

“(d) The Pastor and the Secretary of the Assembly shall certify in such conveyance, lease, or mortgage, that the same has been duly authorized by the vote of the membership. Such certificates shall be held to be conclusive evidence thereof.”

VII. Leeper’s selection as Orange Cove Temple’s pastor
VIII.
On February 1, 2011, Leeper called McClain and asked whether any of Conference’s local assemblies was in search of a pastor. McClain mentioned Orange Cove Temple’s vacancy and advised Leeper he needed to be ordained by Conference before he could be considered. Leeper expressed interest and applied over the phone. McClain filled out a “Ministerial Application Packet” (boldface & some capitalization omitted) on his behalf, transcribing his oral responses. The signature line was left blank. A month or two after the call, Leeper was ordained. Thereafter, he was elected pastor of Orange Cove Temple.

On May 22, 2012, McClain, who remembered Leeper never signed the first application packet, had him complete and sign a new packet. The second page contained the following language:

“Notice to Applicants: Read the following carefully . . . . Acceptance of credentials by applicant unqualifiedly indicates that applicant clearly understands and agrees to be governed by the General Constitution and By-laws of . . . Conference . . . .”

IX. Leeper’s failure to pay tithes
X.
On May 22, 2012, Leeper was questioned about his failure to pay tithes to Conference. According to Leeper, he understood he “had to pay if [he] w[as] going to be a part of” Conference.

Following a September 20, 2012 meeting, Conference’s executive board sent a letter to Leeper. The letter detailed Conference “forgave [the amount] owed . . . in back tithes for Nov[ember] 2011 through May 2012,” “received [Leeper’s] tithes . . . for August” but had “yet to receive June or July,” and recommended he “have [his] church secretary . . . pay [tithes] as previous Pastors have done.”

On June 20, 2014, Conference’s executive board convened. The minutes of the meeting specified:

“[Leeper] has not paid tithes since beginning of 2013. [¶] Bishop feels he is basically thumbing his nose at authority and we will eventually have to confront him to the point he straightens up or we pull his license. [¶] Bishop has called him more than once and always the same run around[.] [¶] . . . [¶]

“Assistant Bishop . . . called Pastor Leeper and Pastor Leeper told him it was a book keeping mistake that he had renewed and paid his tithes. [Assistant Bishop] told him to call the Secretary to get everything straightened out.

“Pastor Leeper finally left a voicemail for the Secretary almost three months later stating he had mailed off his renewal back in March but that he couldn’t find the Money Order Receipt as proof.”

XI. Leeper’s removal
XII.
In a letter addressed to Leeper and dated September 22, 2014, Conference announced:

“We, the members of the . . . Executive Board, wish to address your actions which we feel are unbecoming for a Pastor in this Organization.

“On page 10 of our by-laws, under Duties Of All Ministers it states that ‘Pastors shall give 100% of their ministerial tithes to . . . Conference . . .’ This by-law also states that failure to do so for a period of 90 days will cause him/her to automatically be classified as an inactive minister.

“Meetings have been held with you regarding the matter of non[-]payment of tithes. In addition[,] phone calls have been made to you by members of the Executive Board. You made various promises, none of which were kept. We show the last time you gave your tithes was at the beginning of 2013.

“Due to your failure to abide by the by-laws for well over a year, We, the members of the . . . Executive Board, have voted 100% in favor of revoking your Ordination with . . . Conference . . . and removing you from your position as Pastor of the Orange Cove Full Gospel Temple effective immediately. The authority to take this action is given to us according to . . . Conference by-laws.”

XIII. Post-removal
XIV.
As early as September 24, 2014, Leeper notified Orange Cove Temple’s board of deacons about an emergency meeting to be held on September 26, 2014. Of the five deacons, only one—Sam Johnson—showed up. At the meeting, Leeper and Johnson added a new member to the board of deacons. Leeper also decided to have the front entrance of the church padlocked, new locks installed on other doors, and not give the keys to the deacons who did not attend the meeting.

On Sunday, September 28, 2014, when Leeper appeared at the pulpit, many parishioners objected. At Leeper’s behest, Johnson summoned the police, who advised attendees to either be quiet or leave. Later that evening, Leeper purged numerous parishioners from Orange Cove Temple’s membership roll and, with the exception of Johnson, dismissed the elected deacons.

On September 29, 2014, Orange Cove Full Gospel Temple, Inc., was formed. Via a grant deed dated October 4, 2014, and recorded October 6, 2014, Leeper and Ms. Leeper transferred ownership of Orange Cove Temple’s real property to the newly formed corporation.

XV. Trial testimony
XVI.
McClain testified Conference exerts “hierarchical rule over” the local assemblies and its executive board was “the ruling body.” When she drafted Orange Cove Temple’s bylaws, McClain included language that Orange Cove Temple is “in agreement with . . . Conference Bylaws and fulfill that which is stated under church charters in . . . Conference Bylaw book” to ensure “everything in [Orange Cove Temple’s] bylaws was in conjunction with what was in [Conference’s] bylaws.” McClain reiterated an individual who wanted to pastor a local assembly needed first to be ordained by Conference.

Leeper testified he joined Conference in 2011 and agreed to be bound by Conference’s bylaws. Before signing the 2012 application packet, he read and understood that “[a]cceptance of credentials by applicant unqualifiedly indicates that applicant clearly understands and agrees to be governed by” Conference’s bylaws. Leeper also acknowledged he was obligated to pay tithes to remain a Conference-ordained minister.

Nonetheless, Leeper opined Orange Cove Temple was no longer subject to Conference’s bylaws after it received title to its real property from Conference in 1998. Although Orange Cove Temple was “in fellowship with” Conference, it was “not bound by” Conference. Leeper was told of this fact by “many members of [Orange Cove Temple].” At some point, he believed he no longer needed to pay tithes to Conference. Leeper thought Conference “may have had the right to take [his] license” but “didn’t have the right in any way to affect [him] as pastor of” Orange Cove Temple.

Leeper was aware of Orange Cove Temple’s bylaws regarding the election of a member to the board of deacons, but he and Johnson bypassed the procedure when it added a new member on September 26, 2014.

XVII. Statement of decision
XVIII.
The court adopted plaintiffs’ proposed statement of decision, which read in pertinent part:

“1. . . . Orange Cove . . . Temple . . . is an authorized local assembly, or church, of . . . Conference . . . .

“2. . . . Conference is a hierarchical religious organization made up of local churches. . . . Conference acts through its Executive Board. The Executive Board is the highest ecclesiastical authority of . . . Conference. [¶] . . . [¶]

“5. Prior to 1998, . . . Conference owned [Orange Cove Temple’s] church building [and real property]. . . . [¶] . . . [¶]

“6. In 1998, Orange Cove [Temple] held a meeting and voted to request that title to the property be transferred to Orange Cove [Temple] [citation]. On May 18, 1998, Orange Cove [Temple] made such request, in writing, to . . . Conference [citation]. . . . Orange Cove [Temple] confirmed that it still wanted to be affiliated with . . . Conference and agreed that it would continue to abide by the bylaws of . . . Conference.

“7. On or about August 24, 1998, in response to Orange Cove [Temple]’s request, . . . Conference transferred title to the property to “Orange Cove . . . Temple and their Trustees and Successors’ [citation].

“8. Leeper testified that he was told, and on that basis claims, that the effect of the 1998 deed was that Orange Cove [Temple] would no longer be bound by the rules and bylaws of . . . Conference. This testimony is unpersuasive and there is no other evidence to support such a claim. Orange Cove [Temple] therefore remained a member of . . . Conference after the 1998 deed.

“9. In 2008, Orange Cove [Temple] considered the adoption of revised bylaws [citation]. Draft bylaws were prepared by Nancy McClain, Bishop of . . . Conference, and were presented to the members of Orange Cove [Temple] who discussed them and ultimately adopted them. Ms. McClain testified that she intended [Orange Cove Temple’s] bylaws to be consistent with . . . Conference bylaws and that adoption of [Orange Cove Temple’s] bylaws was not meant to alter the relationship between Orange Cove [Temple] and . . . Conference. The testimony of Ms. McClain is credible and persuasive. Orange Cove [Temple] remained a member of . . . Conference after adoption of [its] bylaws. [¶] . . . [¶]

“11. Leeper sought to be ordained by . . . Conference. . . . Conference bylaws require that ministers seeking Conference ordination submit an application for approval by the Executive Board [citation]. Ms. McClain . . . took Leeper’s application over the phone and wrote the answers given to her by Leeper . . . . On or about May 22, 2012, Leeper met with Ms. McClain and submitted a signed Ministerial Application Packet [citation]. . . . [Leeper] confirmed that he did sign it and submitted it to . . . Conference. . . . Leeper’s answer in the application is binding. Therefore, whether or not Leeper had actually read . . . Conference bylaws, he was responsible for knowing of their content.

“12. [The application] states that the applicant ‘understands and agrees to be governed by the General Constitution and By-laws of the’ Conference. Leeper testified that he believed he was not subject to . . . Conference bylaws. Leeper’s testimony is not credible and is unpersuasive. Therefore, Leeper was subject to . . . Conference bylaws by virtue of being an ordained minister in . . . Conference.

“13. . . . Conference bylaws require ordained ministers to tithe to . . . Conference [citation]. Leeper admittedly failed to tithe to . . . Conference.

“14. . . . Conference informed Leeper of his tithing obligation, and his failure to tithe, in writing on or about September 2012 [citation]. The Executive Board considered Leeper’s failure to tithe on more than one occasion, including on June 20, 2014 [citation].

“15. In part due to his failure to tithe, on September 21, 2014, the Executive Board revoked the ordination of Leeper as a Conference pastor and removed Leeper as pastor of Orange Cove [Temple] . . . . Pursuant to the direction set forth in Episcopal Church Cases (2009) 45 Cal.4[th] 467, this court is not allowed to review actions of the Executive Board on doctrinal issues, including the decision to revoke Leeper’s ordination and remove him as the pastor of Orange Cove [Temple]. The court therefore accepts the decision of the Executive Board and makes no finding regarding such decision.

“16. . . . . On October 4, 2014, after his removal as pastor of Orange Cove [Temple], Leeper and his wife executed a deed purportedly transferring [Orange Cove Temple’s] property to Orange Cove [Full Gospel Temple], Inc. [citation]. The deed is invalid and must be set aside for the following reasons:

“a. . . . Orange Cove [Temple] bylaws require that any alienation of property be authorized by at least a two[-]thirds majority of the entire membership [citation]. No such authorization was sought or obtained.

“b. . . . Orange Cove [Temple] bylaws require the Pastor and Secretary of Orange Cove [Temple] to certify, in any document conveying real property, that such conveyance has been duly authorized by the vote of the membership [citation].

“i. At the time he signed the deed, Leeper was not the pastor of Orange Cove [Temple].

“ii. At the time she signed the deed, Leeper’s wife was not the secretary of Orange Cove [Temple].

“iii. No authorization by the vote of the membership was obtained.

“iv. The deed does not contain the required certification.

“17. On Sunday, September 28, 2014, after being removed as pastor, Leeper continued to act as pastor of Orange Cove [Temple]. Some church goers objected. The police were called. Leeper failed to tell the police of the action by the Executive Board . . . . The police told the objecting church members to be quiet or leave.

“18. Partly in response to the commotion at the September 28, 2014, church service, . . . Leeper unilaterally ‘removed’ 17 members of the church from the church roll. While . . . Orange Cove [Temple] bylaws provide that the Pastor and Board [of Deacons] may jointly remove members from the membership roll [citation], no meeting of the Board of Deacons was held and no vote to remove church members occurred. Therefore, Leeper’s act of removing church members was unauthorized and of no effect.

“19. Also on or about September 28, 2014, Leeper unilaterally ‘removed’ several members of the Board of Deacons. . . . Orange Cove [Temple] bylaws provide that Board Members are elected [citation] and serve terms of two years. The bylaws do not authorize the pastor to unilaterally remove Board Members. Therefore, even if Leeper had not already been removed by the Executive Board, he was not authorized to unilaterally remove Board Members. Therefore, Leeper’s act of removing Board Members was unauthorized and of no effect.

“20. After the church service on September 28, 2014, Sam Johnson, with Leeper’s concurrence, put a chain and padlock on the front door of the church, changed the locks on other church doors and failed [to] give keys to the Board of Deacons. Thus, Orange Cove [Temple] has been unlawfully detained from possessing the property. While the court does not award damages, Orange Cove [Temple] is entitled to immediate possession of the property.” (Some capitalization omitted.)

DISCUSSION

I. Relevant law
II.
“The First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution apply to ‘ “severely circumscribe[]” ’ the role of civil courts in litigation involving religious institutions. [Citation.] ‘[W]here resolution of the disputes cannot be made without extensive inquiry by civil courts into religious law and polity,[ ] the First and Fourteenth Amendments mandate that civil courts shall not disturb the decisions of the highest ecclesiastical tribunal within a church of hierarchical polity, but must accept such decisions as binding on them, in their application to the religious issues of doctrine or polity before them. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Kim v. The True Church Members of Holy Hill Community Church (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1445.) “The prohibition against civil court participation . . . extends to issues involving membership, clergy credentials and discipline, as well as religious entity governance and administration.” (New v. Kroeger, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 815.) “[C]ivil courts may not involve themselves in reviewing the termination of clergy for theological or disciplinary reasons.” (Higgins v. Maher (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 1168, 1173 (Higgins).)

“[D]eference to ecclesiastical matters is greatest in the hierarchical churches.” (Classis of Central California v. Miraloma Community Church (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 750, 760 (Classis).) “By definition, a hierarchical church is one in which individual churches are ‘organized as a body with other churches having similar faith and doctrine[, and] with a common ruling convocation or ecclesiastical head’ vested with ultimate ecclesiastical authority over the individual congregations and members of the entire organized church. [Citations.] . . . In contrast, a congregational church is defined as one ‘strictly independent of other ecclesiastical associations, and [one that] so far as church government is concerned, owes no fealty or obligation to any higher authority.’ [Citation.]” (Concord Christian Center v. Open Bible Standard Churches (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1396, 1409 (Concord).)

“State courts must not decide questions of religious doctrine; those are for the church to resolve. Accordingly, if resolution of a property dispute involves a point of doctrine, the court must defer to the position of the highest ecclesiastical authority that has decided the point. But to the extent the court can resolve a property dispute without reference to church doctrine, it should apply neutral principles of law. The court should consider sources such as the deeds to the property in dispute, the local church’s articles of incorporation, the general church’s constitution, canons, and rules, and relevant statutes, including statutes specifically concerning religious property, such as Corporations Code section 9142.” (Episcopal Church Cases (2009) 45 Cal.4th 467, 485.)

III. Standard of review
IV.
“[T]he trial court’s determination to apply the ecclesiastical rule to certain issues is a question of law reviewable de novo.” (Concord, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1407-1408.) “However, to the extent that determination was itself based on weighing disputed facts in the evidentiary record, our review must be on the basis of substantial evidence.” (Id. at p. 1408.)

“To the extent [an appellate court’s] determination of [a] question depends on the judicial interpretation of the articles of incorporation, bylaws, and other governing documents of [a church denomination and a local affiliated church], we must apply neutral principles of law de novo.” (Concord, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 1408.) Where “the application of these governing documents to the circumstances presented depends on an analysis of the evidence adduced below, which . . . is not ‘largely undisputed[,]’ . . . our review . . . is subject to the well-established standard applicable to any claim that a judgment or finding is not supported by the evidence in the record.” (Ibid., italics omitted.)

Under the substantial evidence standard, “we must 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, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1408-1409.)

V. Analysis
VI.
a. Conference is a hierarchical organization
b.
The record—viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment—shows Conference has a “representative” structure in which the presiding bishop and members of the executive board, the organization’s “ruling body,” are elected by active, Conference-ordained ministers and the delegates of local assemblies. In exchange for voting rights, a local assembly must agree to be governed by Conference’s bylaws. (See Classis, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 761 [subordinate member of denominational organization subject to latter’s rules, canons, and constitution]; Concord, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1400, 1410 [affiliated church subject to hierarchical church’s rules, regulations, and discipline].) While each local assembly “shall have their own separate form of government,” governance must be “in accordance with” Conference’s “general rules and laws.” (See Concord, supra, at p. 1410 [affiliated church may adopt own bylaws so long as they do not conflict with national denomination’s “Policies and Principles”].) In fact, at the outset, Orange Cove Temple’s adopted bylaws state they are “in agreement with” Conference’s bylaws. A local assembly must also pay tithes to Conference for the latter’s “maintenance” and “expansion.” (See Classis, supra, at pp. 756, 762 [subordinate church paid regular dues].)

Under Conference’s 2008 bylaws, only “Conference ministers” are notified about “a vacancy in an established church” and only those “in good standing” are permitted to be considered as ministerial “candidates,” indicating only those ordained by Conference are eligible to pastor a local assembly. Although members of the local assembly ultimately decide whether to elect a candidate, said candidate must initially be screened and approved for ordination by the executive board. A candidate must sign an application packet, which informs the candidate that his or her “[a]cceptance of credentials . . . unqualifiedly indicates [he or she] clearly understands and agrees to be governed by” Conference’s bylaws. These bylaws provide, inter alia, pastors must give 100 percent of their ministerial tithes and half of their secular tithes to Conference and otherwise “be amenable to” Conference “in matters of doctrine and conduct.” A pastor’s failure to pay tithes renders him or her an “inactive minister.” The executive board not only has the discretion to restore “active minister” status but also the express authority to revoke a minister’s ordination for “corrupting or defiling [his/her] office and failing to comply with Conference by-laws.” (Cf. Central Coast Baptist Assn. v. First Baptist Church of Las Lomas (2007) 171 Cal.App.4th 822, 844 [bylaws of voluntary association of Southern Baptist churches state the association “ ‘ “shall never exercise any ecclesiastical authority over any church” ’ ” and “ ‘ “shall always cheerfully recognize the independence of the churches” ’ ”].)

As noted, there does not appear to be any dispute Orange Cove Temple was one of Conference’s local assemblies prior to 1998. Defendants insist Orange Cove Temple became a “separate and distinct independent entity” thereafter. They point to the transfer of title from Conference to Orange Cove Temple in 1998. Any claim that Orange Cove Temple became autonomous after it acquired ownership of its real property is undercut by the church’s May 18, 1998 letter to Conference, in which a quorum of Orange Cove Temple’s members agreed to remain affiliated with Conference, abide by Conference’s bylaws, pay tithes, and retain voting rights. Substantial evidence establishes Orange Cove Temple was not strictly independent of Conference.

c. The ecclesiastical rule prohibits review of Conference’s decision to revoke Leeper’s ordination and end his pastorate
d.
Defendants “do not contest the authority of . . . Conference to revoke an ordination,” which “is ecclesiastical in nature.” They attempt to draw a distinction between a revocation of ordination and the termination of a pastorate, describing the latter as a “property dispute” subject to “ ‘neutral principles of law.’ ” This is a mischaracterization. “ ‘The relationship between an organized church and its ministers is its lifeblood. The minister is the chief instrument by which the church seeks to fulfill its purpose. Matters touching this relationship must necessarily be recognized as of prime ecclesiastical concern.’ ” (Higgins, supra, 210 Cal.App.3d at p. 1174.) Thus, the ecclesiastical rule extends to “the termination of clergy for theological or disciplinary reasons.” (Id. at p. 1173.)

Defendants also assert Conference’s bylaws did not explicitly permit Conference to remove Leeper from his position as Orange Cove Temple’s pastor. Even assuming, arguendo, this is the case, appellate review of the decision is barred by the ecclesiastical rule. (See Higgins, supra, 210 Cal.App.3d at p. 1173 [civil courts cannot review clergy’s termination even if performed “by a procedure contrary to church law and regulations” or “for improper, false and fraudulent motives”].)

e. The October 2014 grant deed was invalid
f.
Under Orange Cove Temple’s bylaws, “[n]o real . . . property of the assembly shall be sold, leased, mortgaged, or otherwise alienated without . . . authoriz[ation] by at least a two[-]thirds majority of the entire membership” and “[t]he Pastor . . . shall certify in such conveyance . . . that the same has been duly authorized by the vote of the membership.” However, the October 2014 grant deed does not contain this required certificate. Moreover, since Leeper was no longer Orange Cove Temple’s pastor after September 22, 2014, he could not certify the membership’s approval of the transaction. Substantial evidence establishes the October 2014 grant deed was invalid.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to plaintiffs and respondents Orange Cove Full Gospel Temple and The Full Gospel Conference of the World, Inc.

DETJEN, J.

WE CONCUR:

POOCHIGIAN, Acting P.J.

PEÑA, J.