Applicability of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine; Winkler by Winkler v. Marist Fathers of Detroit, Inc.; Chabad-Lubavitch of MI v. Schuchman; Conveyances of land; Statute of frauds; MCL 566.106; A deed as a contract; In re Rudell Estate; Covenants & conditions in a deed; Ditmore v. Michalik; Contract interpretation; Michigan Nat’l Bank v. Laskowski

In these consolidated appeals, the court held that the trial court should have applied the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, and that it erred to the extent that it considered plaintiff/defendant-Leica’s donative intent. Thus, it reversed the order granting the motion by Leica and plaintiff/defendant-Holy Trinity Romanian Orthodox Monastery for declaratory judgment and quiet title. It remanded for entry of judgment consistent with the defendant/plaintiff-Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of America’s (ROEA) determinations as to the disputed property and of orders as necessary to fully effectuate the court’s decision. The ROEA created the Holy Ascension Romanian Orthodox Christian Monastery, a Michigan nonprofit corporation. Defendant-Duvlea served as the monastery’s abbot. Leica conveyed two parcels of real property to the monastery. The ROEA and the Orthodox Church in America later suspended Duvlea and demoted him. Duvlea and others on Holy Ascension’s board of trustees conveyed the property by quitclaim deed to “Holy Trinity, a Michigan nonprofit corporation they created, and they dissolved Holy Ascension without the knowledge of the ROEA and the Orthodox Church in America.” These cases concerned whether “Holy Trinity, a monastic corporate entity formed by a schismatic faction that left the ROEA, could claim ownership of the property that the faction conveyed from Holy Ascension before dissolving it.” The court concluded that under Schuchman, the trial court should have “determined that this case involved hierarchical religious organizations and that the actual adjudication of the legal claims required the resolution of ecclesiastical questions respecting the interrelationships of the entities within the hierarchical denomination and its interpretation of the ownership and ability to transfer or convey properties by such entities.” Based on the evidence presented by the ROEA, it “should have declined to apply the ‘neutral principles of law’ approach and applied the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.” Further, Leica’s intent for donating the property was irrelevant in deciding the issues presented.