Unlike other property ownership disputes, challenges regarding ownership by churches begin with a more fundamental question of whether the matter should be brought in civil or ecclesiastic courts. The Court of Appeals of Virginia, in Atlantic Korean American Presbytery v. Shalom Presbyterian Church of Washington, Inc., decided on March 11, 2025, issued a lengthy decision tracing the history of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine and its application in Virginia.
In England, civil jurisdiction regarding church property was separated from ecclesiastic jurisdiction in the wake of Henry VIII’s English Reformation, but questions of ownership and transfer of such property continued to be a perplexing thicket. This separation of jurisdiction was narrowed in the American colonies with an early act of the Virginia General Assembly vesting jurisdiction of both ecclesiastical and civil matters in the trial courts. The First Amendment revived the separation of jurisdiction but questions of how this separation was to be applied as to property issues remained.
Even as the law developed in the United States such that civil courts had jurisdiction to decide property disputes in the absence of any dispute between the parties about any matter of religious faith, jurisdiction was dependent on both sides having the same faith and being members of the same church. In essence, the religious principles in such cases were neutral because the parties agreed upon them. However, what occurs when the parties did not agree on the religious principles, such as when a congregation splits or a schism occurs? Which faction becomes the property owner?
The Virginia General Assembly attempted to solve this beginning in 1867 by declaring that the majority of the members who joined a church and submitted to its polity had authority to decide ownership. This approach favored certain congregational churches to the potential detriment of hierarchical ones. This statutory scheme was short lived when, four years later, the United States Supreme Court held that competing church factions—each of which had submitted to the church’s polity granting authority of the church itself to determine ownership—divested the civil courts from jurisdiction.
Over the ensuing century, the case law developed such that civil jurisdiction existed to determine ownership of church property only where the civil court relied solely on neutral principles of law, and courts could reject ecclesiastical decisions only if they were fraudulently obtained. Absent fraud, civil courts were required to accept ecclesiastical determinations as to property disposition. However, as the Virginia Supreme Court has noted, “what is or is not an ecclesiastical dispute is often debatable.”
In Atlantic Korean, the Court of Appeals drew on this long history of jurisdictional separation. In that matter, Pastor Bo Chang Seo became the head pastor of an independent Christian church for Korean-speaking immigrants. Ten years later, Pastor Seo and Shalom Church submitted an application to join the newly-formed Atlantic Korean American Presbytery, a presbytery of the Presbyterian Church (USA) formed under the church’s constitution, the Book of Order. Shalom Church then amended its bylaws to provide that it was subject to the “Book of Order in its government and structure.” After joining, Shalom acquired valuable property in Fairfax County, Virginia but did not inform the Presbytery of its purchase. Pursuant to the Book of Order, all property owned by a member church is held in trust for the Presbyterian Church (USA).
More than two decades after acquiring the property, the Presbytery investigated Pastor Seo’s ordination and determined that he was ineligible to serve as pastor. The Presbytery then decided to take direct control over the property. In response, Pastor Seo and Shalom Church filed a complaint with the Synod of the Mid-Atlantic, the regional governing body with oversight over presbyteries. The Synod denied the relief requested and permitted the Presbytery to take control over the property. One month later, Pastor Seo and Shalom Church filed suit in the circuit court.
The circuit court held that the Presbytery failed to establish that Pastor Seo and Shalom Church were members of the Presbyterian Church (USA) as the court interpreted church doctrine to require a member to sign a written covenant in order to first become a member. Drawing an analogy to golf club membership, the circuit court reasoned that, absent such a signed writing, neither Pastor Seo nor Shalom Church could be a member of Presbyterian Church (USA) even if they desired to be a member.
The Court of Appeals strongly disagreed, holding that—when Pastor Seo and Shalom Church contended that they were members of Presbyterian Church (USA) and submitted their property dispute to the Synod—the parties invoked ecclesiastical jurisdiction to challenge the attempt to exercise authority over the real property and that the matter is now governed by ecclesiastic law. In doing so, Pastor Seo and Shalom Church deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction to later hear their lawsuit in civil court on that very same issue. The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court and remanded the matter with instructions to dismiss the “current” complaint with suggestion that Pastor Seo and Shalom Church can file a new complaint to invoke neutral principles of law to determine whether a trust was created upon becoming a member but that membership could not be relitigated because that issue had been conclusively established by the Synod.
Jackson & Campbell, P.C. represents title insurers and insureds in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. and we strive to keep our clients and other title professionals up to date on various developments in the law. Additionally, we present no-cost in-house updates of the nation’s most noteworthy cases and national trends following the spring and fall American Land Title Association’s Title Counsel meetings.
If you have any questions about this case or laws impacting real estate in and around the Washington, D.C. region, feel free to contact us. Our Real Estate Litigation and Transactions Practice Group is ready to assist.