With No End In Sight To The Same Sex Marriage Controversy
By Garmah Never Lomo, garmahlomo@gmail.com
TEMPLE OF JUSTICE, Monrovia- The Sixth Judicial Circuit, Civil Law Court A Judge George W. Smith has ruled that members of the United Methodist Church and Liberia Annual Conference who broke away are not entitled to any of its properties.
The leadership of the St. Trowen United Methodist Church (UMC) has dragged the United Methodist Annual Conference to the Sixth Judicial Civil Law Court.
The current case in the court presided over by Judge George W. Smith, has to do with ownership of the church. And the rift in the UMC blew open last year after a decision by the UMC General Conference in the United States to alter the Church’s “Book of Discipline” on what marriage is, now over. Same Sex Row Deepens: St. Trowen Nagbe UMC Leadership Drags United Methodist Annual Conference To Court – News Public Trust
Assigned Judge Smith in his ruling on Monday said, the claims by Global Methodist Church members who broke away from the UMC regarding their right to a share in church properties are legally unfounded. The Court ruled that one cannot transfer or distribute what one does not legally own.
The Court maintained that Bishop Samuel J. Quire, Jr. had no authority to allocate church properties to the breakaway group, emphasizing that church trustees are the rightful stewards of its assets.
“That the GMC and Rev Jerry P. Kulah hold no legal or equitable right, title, or interest in UMC Liberia Annual Conference properties, including worship centers, schools, hospitals, and other facilities”.
Judge Smith added that by seceding, the Respondents ( United Methodist Church ) forfeited all beneficial ownership and interest in said properties and are therefore prohibited from possessing, using, or transferring them, including removing signage belonging to the UMC Liberia Annual Conference.
The ruling, which stems from a petition for declaratory judgment, reaffirms the legal ownership and authority of the UMC Liberia Annual Conference over its assets and serves as a precedent in disputes involving religious institutional property rights.
The ruling further referenced the Honorable Supreme Court of Liberia in the case: Church of Christ (Holiness) of Liberia v. St Timothy Church of Buchanan et al. (July 7,1983). 31 LLR. syllabi 1, 3, 4, 5 & 6.
Since 1st and 2nd Respondents (Global Methodist Church and Bishop Jerry Kulah) have terminated their membership from Petitioner UMC Liberia Annual Conference in manners mentioned above, which is not in dispute, the answers are YES to both questions: Whether or not 1st and 2nd Respondents have no color of right to the ownership of any of the Petitioner’s properties, be it worship centers, universities, primary & secondary schools, hospitals/clinics, among others? and 2. Whether or not 2nd Respondent having disassociated/disaffiliated, broke away from Petitioner and established the 1st Respondent, [therefore] have no authority or right to occupy, transfer the property Petitioner’s properties to 1st Respondent and remove the sign/inscription, which serves as a mark of distinction of the Petitioner?
“Now, the main question: Whether or not the Petition for Declaratory Judgment and the Resistance thereto present no genuine issue as to any material fact that would entitle Petitioner UMC Liberia Annual Conference to the grating of summary judgment in its favor, the basis of the Petitioner UMC Liberia Annual Conference’s Petition for Summary Judgment and 1st and 2nd Respondents’ Resistance thereto?”
Petitioner UMC Liberia Annual Conference’s legal title to its properties is not in dispute. For example, Petitioner has exhibited at least eleven (11) title deeds claiming legal titles to some of its properties.
The Court said, 1st and 2nd Respondents have proffered no title deed claiming legal title, thus challenging Petitioner’s legal title and ownership. Title, therefore is not in dispute and, therefore, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and hence entitling Petitioner UMC Liberia Annual Conference to summary judgment as a matter of law.
It further that the Petitioner UMC Liberia Annual Conference has the legal right to even institute a petition for summary proceeding to recover possession of real property against illegal, unlawful and wrongful occupiers or occupants of its properties and evict, eject and oust them from said properties, including 1st and 2nd Respondents, and claim damages therefor from the illegal, unlawful and wrongful occupiers, occupants or possessors.
The Court cited Sections 62.21, 62.22 & 62.23. Civil Procedure Law, 1LCLR Under the general principle of the law of trust and estate, Petitioner UMC Liberia Annual Conference is the legal owner of the properties and its members are the equitable owners of those properties.
In other words Petitioner UMC Liberia Annual Conference, the trustee, holds the properties in trust for the use and benefits of its members, the beneficiaries. Accordingly, it is held that: “It is a fundamental essential of a trust that the legal estate be separated from the equitable estate or beneficial enjoyment the ruling highlighted.
The trustee is vested with a legal, as distinguished from an equitable, estate, which legal estate equity recognizes but compels to be used by the trustee in accordance with the terms of the trust and for the benefit of all the beneficiaries, 32 present and future.” Thus, the special Act of the Legislature has created trust in Petitioner UMC Liberia Annual Conference. Accordingly, Section 3 of the Act states that the UMC Liberia Annual Conference “shall have authority to … purchase or otherwise acquire and hold property, real, personal and mix [ed]….” While Section 4(1) of the Act gives the UMC Liberia Annual Conference the power and authority, inter alia, to administer those properties.
This means, then, that the UMC Liberia Annual Conference is the trustee and legal owner of the property, held in trust for the use and benefit of the beneficiaries, members of all United Methodist Churches in Liberia, present and future. Section 253: Trustees’ Estate and Interest – Generally – Trust,
The 1 Respondent, Global United Methodist Church (Liberia), Inc., having seceded and separated from the UMC Liberia Annual Conference and incorporated its own Global Methodist Church (Liberia), forfeited all rights to the UMC Liberia Annual Conference. 1st Respondent is not and cannot possibly be the legal owner and trustee of Petitioner UMC Liberia Annual Conference properties. Similarly, 2nd Respondent, members of 1st Respondent Global United Methodist Church (Liberia), Inc., having seceded and terminated their membership from Petitioner UMC Liberia Annual Conference have terminated and forfeited their rights to Petitioner UMC Liberia Annual Conference’s properties and they ceased to be beneficial owners thereof for UMC Liberia Annual Conference therefore made a submission, and conceded by Counsel of 1st and 2nd Respondents, that the motion to strike became mute; hence, only the motion to rescind and the motion for summary judgment are now subject of this Court’s Ruling.
First the Motion to Rescind.
1st and 2nd Movants are herein jointly referred to as Movants; while Respondent UMC Liberia Annual Conference is referred to as Respondent.
The Motion to Rescind grew out of this Court’s Ruling to a Motion to Dismiss filed by the Movants, Global Methodist Church (Liberia), Inc., as 1st Respondent, and Rev. Dr. Jerry P. Kulah, Rev. Dr. J. Sarwolo Nelson, Jr., Rev. Dr. George D. Wilson, Jr., Rev. Dr. Isaac Chuckpue Padmore, Rev. Julius Y.Z.K Williams, 1, Rev. Kenneth C. Jackson, Rev. Leo Mayson, Rev. Rodney Marshall, Rev. Elijah Dajue, Rev. Cooper Page Mondolo, Rev. Allen Paye, Fth. Johnson Jooju Kumeh, Cllr. Emmanuel T. Tomah and Mr. L. Olando Boyce, I, as 2nd Respondents, in the Petition for Declaratory Judgment instituted by the Respondent, The United Methodist Church, Liberia Annual Conference, Petitioner therein.
The basis of Movants’ Motion (GMC) to Dismiss Respondent/Petitioner UMC Liberia Annual Conference’s Petition for Declaratory Judgment Respondent was that it failed “to establish its capacity and standing as a corporation authorized to do and is doing business in Liberia,” in that, according to Section 1.7 of the Association Law as amended in 2020 provides that: “A corporation that has ceased to be in good standing by reason of its neglect, refusal and failure to pay annual registration fee shall not maintain an action, suit or proceeding in any court until such corporation has been restored to and has the status of a corporation in good standing…..” as contained in count 1(b) of that motion to dismiss, relying on 1.7 of our Association Law which was amended in 2020 as aforesaid. It provides: “Every Domestic corporation and every foreign corporation authorized to do business in Liberia shall pay to the Minister of Finance an annual registration fee of one hundred dollars for registration with the Minister of Foreign Affairs.”
However, pursuant to Section 20.6 of the Association Law under which not-for-profit corporations, like Respondent, fall, provides that: “On filing articles of incorporation or any other document required by law to be filed with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, a not-for-profit corporation shall pay a fee of fifty dollars to the Minister of Finance and a receipt therefor shall accompany the documents presented for filing. A not-for-profit corporation shall not be liable for payment of an annual registration fee.” [Emphasis added].
It is on the basis of Section 20.6 of the Association Law along with the special Act of the National Legislature creating Respondent in 1959 as amended in 1978, this Court ruled that Section 1.7 of the Association Law as amended in 2020 requiring the payment of annual registration fee is not applicable Respondent.
This is this Court’s ruling Movants now seek to have rescinded on ground that the Court inadvertently erred for reason that Respondent, like other not-for-profit corporations, is required to pay annual registration fee pursuant to Section 20.3 of the general Association Law which states that: “The provisions of the Business Corporation Act which constitute Part I of this title [the Association Law), and which relates to domestic corporations or foreign corporations, shall apply to not-for-profit corporations, except as to matters specifically otherwise provided for this Act….” [Emphasis added].
its Resistance to the Motion to Rescind Respondent (UMC) a not-for-profit corporation, not created by articles of incorporation but rather a special act of the Legislature, maintained at it is exempt from payment of annual registration fee, relying on the above quoted Section 20.6 of the Association Law and the special Act of the Legislature creating spondent UMC Liberia Annual Conference.
Dring oral arguments the Counsel for Movants(GMC) strongly argued, among other things, that respondent is required to pay annual registration fee pursuant to Section to 1.7 of the Association Law as amended in 2020, and that Section 20.3 of the Business Corporation. Part 1 of the Association Law, also applies to Respondent, a not-for-profit corporation, der Part II of the Association Law. While on the other hand, Counsel for Respondent UMC argued, inter alia, that the contrary is true and that the exception clause, “except as to matter specifically otherwise provided for in this Act,” as contained in the same Section 5.3 of the Association Law covers Respondent. Counsel for Respondent also relied on.
In conclusion, the allegation by Respondents(GMC) that Bishop Quire mandated that break-away members are entitled to distribution of Petitioner UMC Liberia Annual Conference’s properties, even if true, such distribution of properties would be void because one, in this case Bishop Quire, cannot give that which he does not under the legal maxim of nemo dat quod non habet – one cannot give that which he/she/it hath not.
It is the legal owner of the property, the trustee, who may convey a church’s property; and, that conveyance must be, and violative of, the equitable interest of the beneficiaries – members of the church.
The exclusive legal right to enjoyment by one of his/her/its property has its authority not merely to legal positivism – the constitution, statutes and the common law/judge-made law. The exclusive right to enjoyment of one’s own property is a principle of natural law and inalienable right.
Indeed, history has shown that when the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church and the Protestant Church broke away and terminated their memberships with the Roman Catholic Church because of religious and political differences, those break-away churches were not distributees of the Roman Catholic Church’s properties.
Similarly, when John Wesley, the Methodist, and his members broke way from, terminated their membership with the Anglican Church and established the Methodist Church, there were not distributees of the properties of the Anglican Church.
WHEREFORE, AND IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, Petitioner UMC Liberia Annual Conference’s Petition for Declaratory Judgment is hereby sustained and granted. 1st and 2nd Respondents’ Resistance thereto is denied and dismissed. This therefore declares as follows:
- That 1st and 2nd Respondents have no color of right, title, legal and equitable ownership and interest to any of Petitioner UMC Liberia Annual Conference’s properties worship centers, universities, primary & secondary schools, hospitals/clinics, among others; and
- That 2nd Respondents, having seceded from and terminated their membership from Petitioner UMC Liberia Annual Conference, they forfeited their beneficial ownership of and interest in UMC Liberia Annual Conference’s properties, and therefore they ceased to be beneficial owners of those properties. They have no right to occupy, possess or transfer said properties and remove the sign/inscription thereon, which serves as a mark of distinction of Petitioner UMC Liberia Annual Conference.