1Fold.com :: Legal Updates

Special Note: The information contained in this section of the website deals with internal matters specific to members of The Church of God. If you are not a member of The Church of God, please avail yourself to the other pages listed at the left. If you need to experience a relationship with Christ, please visit the Spiritual Help page of the site. Thank You.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Legal Updates on Elizabethtown, KY

...Property dispute from representatives of The Church of God,

Herbert J. Graham, Sr., & John Talley (as Plaintiffs) -vs-

Pastor Eric Phelps and the congregation of The Church of

God of Elizabethtown, KY.

Text of Document

Document Graphic

HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT

DIVISION III

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-CI-00364

THE CHURCH OF GOD, ELIZABETHTOWN,

By and through it’s Trustees,

Herbert J. Graham, Sr., and John Talley

PLAINTIFF

VS. ORDER

ERIC PHELPS, et al.

DEFENDANTS

* * * * *

This distressing case arises out of discord within the Church of God of Elizabethtown. The precise reasons for the split are not yet established. The initial information presented during the hearing on May 1, 2006, suggests that the majority of the local church disagrees with the appointment of a certain individual having authority in the hierarchy of the church at the state or regional level. As the Court stated to the parties, it is not the place of the Court to determine the rightness of either cause. The question presented for courts of law is one only of rights to property.

From the information provided to the Court thus far, the church was not incorporated prior to the difficulties in October and November of 2005. It would appear that the church is a religious society, operated at least on a local level by trustees who would hold title to the property as such. The Court does not yet have as documentary evidence by-laws or other rules and regulations which govern the business of this particular church. Nor does the Court have specific information as to what extent the affairs of the church, including ownership of property, is governed at an organizational level above the local church. If this matter cannot be resolved amicably, such issues will have to be determined in what may be protracted litigation.

The use of church property in circumstances such as this is governed by KRS 273.120:

In case of a division in a religious society, the trustees shall permit each

party to use the church and property for devine worship a part of the time,

portioned to the members of each party. The excommunication of one (1)

party by the other shall not impair this right unless it is done in good faith,

on the ground of immorality.

While the Court has heard evidence that the majority of this congregation have been “disfellowshipped”, there is no indication that this action, to the extent it could be considered similar to “excommunication”, is on the basis of immorality. The Court has seen no indication of immorality. See Ransom v. Rogers, 6 Ky.L.Rptr. 291, 12 Ky. Op. 739 (1884) (expulsion for disagreement over a certain minister was not immorality under the statute). On the contrary, it seems that the individuals involved in this difficulty are acting in good faith with a sincere belief in the correctness of their respective positions.

In accordance with KRS 273.120, the members aligned with the Defendants are entitled to a greater proportional use of the property than those aligned with the Plaintiffs basically along a 2/3rds to 1/3rd proportion. The Defendants have suggested that they should be permitted to use the property on Sundays and Wednesdays with the Plaintiffs using the property on Saturdays and one other day during the week. The Plaintiffs point out that they would like to schedule an event such as a revival over a number of days, including a Sunday.

Having considered the positions of each side, the Court will incorporate some of the schedule the parties are used to under the prior Hardin District Court order. Some changes will be made to meet the requirement of proportional use. Proportional use includes not only the amount of time allotted to each side but also the nature of that time. Certain days and times are traditionally recognized as times of worship and study of Scripture, for example, Sunday mornings and Sunday and Wednesday evenings.

The schedule during the pendency of this suit beginning on Sunday, May 7, 2006, Will be as follows:

Sundays: Phelps 8:00 AM – 2:00 PM; Graham 4:00 PM – 9:00 PM

Mondays: Phelps

Tuesdays: Graham

Wednesdays: Phelps 5:00 PM – 7:00 PM; Graham 8:00 PM – 10:00 PM

Thursdays: Phelps

Fridays: Graham

Saturdays: Phelps

Every third week, the times on Sundays are switched. For example, Phelps has the morning hours on Sunday, May 7 and May 14, then Graham has the morning hours on Sunday, May 21. Then the cycle repeats. Since the hours on Wednesdays are shorter and each side can plan Wednesday night activities, these hours will stay the same week to week, with the majority party having the preferred earlier hours.

The schedule may not be what either side wanted, but that is sometimes unavoidable when the courts are called upon to decide issues which perhaps could best be decided by agreement of the parties themselves. The Court is not unmindful that the parties may want to schedule revivals or similar activities. The Court’s schedule may make it difficult to plan such events if more than two consecutive days are needed. Nothing prevents the parties from reaching a written agreement signed by Mr. Phelps and Mr. Graham as representatives of each side to alter temporarily the weekly schedule so that events may be planned.

Any schedule will still require communication and cooperation among the members of this fractured church. Recognizing that divisions in churches in the past have been resolved given time and effort, the Court will hope for healing and a resolution that may come with that healing.

So Ordered this 5th day of May, 2006.

JUDGE, HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT

DIVISION III

ENTERED: 5/5/06

ATTEST: RALPH BASKEPT, CLERK

HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT

BY: M. REYNOLDS D.C.

Copy to:

M. Coyle

G. Bekes