Mt. Zion Missionary Baptist Church v. Ameal Jones, Sr.

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: February 1, 2012
• Docket: CA-0011-0961
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

11-0961

MOUNT ZION MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH

VERSUS

AMEAL JONES, SR.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 240,167 HONORABLE MARY LAUVE DOGGETT, DISTRICT JUDGE

JIMMIE C. PETERS JUDGE

Court composed of Jimmie C. Peters, Marc T. Amy, and Shannon J. Gremillion, Judges.

AFFIRMED. MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED.

Bradley L. Drell B. Gene Taylor, III Gold, Weems, Bruser, Sues & Rundell P.O. Box 6118 Alexandria, LA 71307 (318) 445-6471 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: Mount Zion Missionary Baptist Church

Tiffany N. Sanders Attorney at Law 1024 Eighth Street Alexandria, LA 71301 (318) 443-9080 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Ameal Jones, Sr. PETERS, J.

This litigation involves an internal dispute over church leadership in the Mount

Zion Baptist Church, Incorporated, a/k/a Mount Zion Missionary Baptist Church,

located in Alexandria, Louisiana. Ameal Jones, Sr., appeals a trial court judgment

granting a preliminary injunction to Mount Zion removing him as pastor of the church,

nullifying an election of trustees favorable to him, and prohibiting him or his agents

from entering the church. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court

judgment.

DISCUSSION OF THE RECORD

The record of this litigation is extensive and continues to grow.1 However, we

will limit our opinion to the issues raised by the March 2, 2011 trial court judgment

that is the judgment at issue in this phase of the litigation.

The evidentiary record before us establishes that Mount Zion Baptist Church,

Incorporated, is a Louisiana nonprofit corporation chartered on June 26, 1928. At

some point after incorporation it adopted a set of bylaws for the day-to-day operation

of the church, but, as is the case in many nonprofit corporations, the church did not

necessarily follow the strict letter of the bylaws in its activities. In a December 4,

1993 business meeting, the church voted to amend its articles of incorporation by

adding certain tax-related provisions, and this amendment was filed with the

Louisiana Secretary of State’s office on October 29, 1996.

The articles of incorporation provide that “[t]he corporate powers of this

corporation shall be vested in a Board of Trustees comprised of seven persons . . .

who shall be elected annually by the members of the corporation, and who shall serve

until their successors are elected and qualified.” It further provides that “[a] majority

of the Board of Trustees shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.”

1 Additional issues concerning the corporate governance of the church are simultaneously on appeal in Edward Ambush v. The Mount Zion Baptist Church, Inc., through its Board of Trustees, 11-1028 (La.App. 3 Cir. _/_/_), __ So.3d __. In August of 2006, Johnnie Simmons, Kelvin Sanders, Jean Anderson, Quincy

Boyd, Connie Ware, and Daisy Nash were elected as trustees for the church. 2 In

December of that same year, Mr. Jones was selected as the church’s pastor.

While there are numerous underlying reasons for the internal dispute in the

church, this litigation has as its origin a November 16, 2009 church meeting involving

some of the trustees, deacons, and church members. A vote by secret ballot was taken

on the question whether to retain Mr. Jones as the church’s pastor. Forty-four of those

present voted to declare the pulpit vacant immediately, one voted to retain Mr. Jones

as pastor, and two ballots were returned blank.

On the next day, Dexter Sapp, who claimed to be acting on behalf of the Board

of Deacons, forwarded a letter to Mr. Jones that stated the following:

This letter will serve as formal notice that after a duly announced Church meeting and a duly held vote your services are herein terminated, effectively immediately. The termination includes your duties as Pastor, the radio ministry and the presiding over any committee, as an[sic] chairperson or ex facto member.

Further, you are prohibited, from going into or upon the property of Mount Zion Missionary Baptist Church. Should you go into or enter upon any said property it will be considered a criminal trespass and you shall be promptly and forcibly be [sic] removed by law enforcement.

Thank you for efforts thus far, but the Church has decided it needs to go in a different direction.

The Board of Trustees held a called meeting on December 16, 2010, attended

by Mr. Simmons, Mr. Sanders and Ms. Nash. The minutes of that meeting list Ms.

Anderson and Mr. Boyd as being absent, but are silent as to whether Ms. Ware

remained a member of the Board of Trustees. The minutes do, however, reflect that at

the meeting a vote was taken to remove Ms. Ware as Director of Finance for the

church. They also reflect that five members of the Board of Deacons were present as

2 There is some question concerning the election procedure and there is no explanation why only six trustees were elected, but the parties do not dispute the fact that an election occurred at this time. Additionally, the parties do not dispute the fact that no election was held from that point through the beginning of this litigation. 2 well: Chairman David Smith,3 Fred Baldwin, Glenn Cooper, Charles Keller and Ed

Stafford. According to the minutes, “all board members present” voted to declare the

pulpit vacant and immediately set up a pulpit committee to search for a new pastor.

The minutes are silent as to what action, if any, was taken by the deacons present.

Even before the vote of the Board of Trustees on December 16, 2010, the first

pleading was filed by the church seeking an injunction prohibiting Mr. Jones from

going onto the church property. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order

that same day, granting the church the relief it requested and setting a show cause

hearing for a future date. After significant procedural maneuvering, on February 24,

2011, the matter went to trial on a number of different issues. Before the trial on the

merits began, the trial court rejected a number of exceptions and motions filed by Mr.

Jones. With regard to the remaining issues, the trial court ruled in the church’s favor.

On March 2, 2011, the trial court executed a written judgment which provided in part

that the church’s preliminary injunction was granted and that Mr. Jones was

discharged as pastor of the church; that the purported election of a new Board of

Trustees on February 13, 2011, was nullified and set aside; and that Mr. Jones and his

agents or representatives were prohibited and enjoined from entering or occupying

any of the property of the church “as pastor pending any further action in accordance

with the Church bylaws and Louisiana law.” (Emphasis added.)

In his appeal of this judgment, Mr. Jones asserts four assignments of error:

1. The Trial Court erred in ruling that Mt. Zion’s bylaws did not apply to the Appellant’s termination.

2. The Trial Court erred in its finding that the Appellant was validly terminated.

3. Trial court erred when it granted a temporary restraining order, preventing an election of a new board of trustees, then later voiding an election of the board of trustees, when the members had the statutory right to conduct an election.

3 Mr. Smith is also listed in the minutes as an ad hoc member of the Board of Trustees. 3 4. Trial court erred in recognizing certain individuals as members of the board of trustees, when there was insufficient evidence tending to prove that they were elected by the church and pursuant to the articles and bylaw[s].

OPINION

After Mr. Jones perfected his appeal, the church filed a motion to dismiss the

appeal, asserting that the issues raised therein are moot. In support of its motion, the

church attached a copy of the transcript of a trial court hearing held on October 26,

2011, which purports to be a hearing on a request by the church for a new preliminary

injunction. The evidence presented at that hearing consisted of the testimony of

Richard Quinney, a church member who claimed to be present at church on

September 18, 2011, at which time Mr. Jones announced from the pulpit that he was

no longer going to fight for the church’s pulpit. Even assuming we can consider this

new evidence, this does not render the appeal moot. The issues on appeal consist of

more than Mr. Jones’ dismissal as pastor. That being the case, we reject the church’s

motion to dismiss the appeal.

Standard of Review on Remaining Issues

We first note that although Mr. Jones bases his appellate arguments on the

premise that the trial court granted a permanent injunction, the trial court’s judgment

of March 2, 2011, clearly states that it granted only a preliminary injunction. A trial

court’s determination as to whether to issue a preliminary injunction is subject to the

abuse of discretion standard of review. Smith v. W. Va. Oil & Gas Co., 373 So.2d 488

(La.1979).

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 3601(A) provides that “[a]n

injunction shall be issued in cases where irreparable injury, loss, or damage may

otherwise result to the applicant, or in other cases specifically provided by law.”

During the pendency of an action for a permanent injunction the court may issue a

temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or both. La.Code Civ.P. art.

4 3601(C). A preliminary injunction merely requires a prima facie showing that the

plaintiff has a good chance to prevail on the merits. Novelaire Technologies, L.L.C. v.

Harrison, 08-157 (La.App. 5 Cir. 8/19/08), 994 So.2d 57. Although the hearing on

the preliminary injunction may touch upon, or even tentatively decide, the substantive

issues that comprise the petition for the permanent injunction, those substantive issues

raised in the principal demand will be decided only after a full trial under ordinary

process. Smith, 373 So.2d 488; Novelaire Technologies, L.L.C., 994 So.2d 57.

Assignments of Error Numbers One and Two

In his first two assignments of error, Mr. Jones asserts that the trial court erred

in basing its decision that his employment as pastor of Mount Zion was properly

terminated pursuant to La.R.S. 12:225(E) and in not applying the church’s bylaws.

We find no merit in either of these assignments of error.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 12:222(A) provides that nonprofit corporations may

adopt bylaws, and La.R.S. 12:222(B) provides that those bylaws “shall operate merely

as regulations among the shareholders or the members.” Additionally, La.R.S.

12:225(E) provides that, within a corporate structure, “[a]ny officer or agent may be

removed by the board of directors with or without cause at any time, without

prejudice, however, to the contract rights of the person so removed,” and the church’s

bylaws define the pastor as an officer of the church. Still, Mr. Jones asserts that the

church bylaws provisions relative to termination of a pastor, and not La.R.S.

12:225(E), govern.

Mr. Jones is correct that the church bylaws provide procedures to raise the

question of whether to retain a pastor. Article VII, Section II of the church bylaws

addresses two different scenarios that might arise. In the first scenario, found in

Section II(A), “[t]he pastor may call for an expression vote from the voting members

of the church to determine their desire as to the continued service of him as pastor.”

(Emphasis added.) In the second scenario, found in Section II(B), “[t]he deacons and

5 trustees, desiring an expression of the church as to the continuation of the services of

the pastor, shall call a special business meeting for that purpose.” (Emphasis added.)

The trial court based its decision that the church had made a prima facie

showing sufficient to justify the grant of the preliminary injunction on La.R.S.

12:225(E). While we do note that the bylaws make other methods available for

removal of a pastor, we do not find that those methods are exclusive. That being the

case, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination that the church

established a prima facie showing that the vote of a majority of the Board of Trustees

was sufficient to remove Mr. Jones from the pulpit.

Assignment of Error Number Three

After a January 24, 2011 hearing, the trial court issued a ruling that the Board

of Trustees in place prior to the suit being filed would remain in office “until we

decide otherwise, either by another vote or by determining if this last vote was valid.”

On February 11, 2011, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining

Mr. Jones “and his agents and representatives” from “calling, holding, and conducting

any election or other procedure for the purpose of electing, removing, or otherwise

changing the composition of the board of directors of Mount Zion Baptist Church, Inc.

or the Board of Trustees of Mount Zion Missionary Baptist Church at any time.” Mr.

Jones ignored this order and presided over a February 13, 2011 meeting wherein a

new Board of Trustees was elected.

On February 18, 2011, the church filed a rule for contempt and a rule to vacate

the February 13, 2011 election. The trial court addressed this issue in its March 2,

2011 judgment by nullifying the election of the new trustees. In the first part of this

assignment of error Mr. Jones argues that the trial court erred in granting the February

11, 2011 temporary restraining order. We find no merit in this argument.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 3603(A)(1) provides that the trial

court shall grant a temporary restraining order without notice when “[i]t clearly

6 appears from specific facts shown by a verified petition or by supporting affidavit that

immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant before

the adverse party or his attorney can be heard in opposition.” Although La.Code

Civ.P. art. 3612 provides that “there shall be no appeal from an order relating to a

temporary restraining order,” this case also involves the subsequent order enforcing

that temporary restraining order. See Parker v. Chimneywood Homeowners’ Ass’n,

Inc., 02-2475 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/17/03), 866 So.2d 289, writ denied, 04-202 (La.

9/3/04), 882 So.2d 606 (wherein the appellees asserted that there was no right of

appeal from a temporary restraining order, but the fourth circuit determined that it had

the authority to review the matter on appeal, stating that “[w]e agree that appeals are

not permitted in cases involving temporary restraining orders; however, this case also

involved a Motion for Preliminary Injunction.” Id. at p. 293). We find the trial court

did not err in granting the temporary restraining order given the underlying facts of

this litigation.

In the second half of this assignment of error, Mr. Jones assets that the trial

court erred in voiding the results of the February 13, 2011 election. Having reached

the conclusion that the trial court’s grant of a temporary restraining order was well

within its sound discretion, it follows that Mr. Jones’ complaint in the second half of

this assignment of error is without merit as well.

Assignment of Error Number Four

In his final assignment of error, Mr. Jones contends that the trial court erred in

ruling in its March 10, 2011 order that Mount Zion’s Board of Trustees would consist

of six people: Mr. Simmons, Mr. Sanders, Ms. Nash, Dr. Ware, Mr. Smith, and Mr.

Boyd. We decline to address this assignment of error as the judgment complained of

was rendered after the March 2, 2011 judgment that is the subject of this appeal.

7 DISPOSITION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court judgment in all respects.

Mount Zion Missionary Baptist Church’s motion to dismiss the appeal is denied. We

assess all costs of this appeal to Ameal Jones, Sr.