Synod of So. CA & Hawaii v. Kim 8/19/08 C2/3

Filed 8/19/08 Synod of Southern California and Hawaii v. Kim CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
SYNOD OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
AND HAWAII, et al.,
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
v.
KYUNG SUH KIM et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
B191806
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BC308786)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Lee Smalley Edmon, Judge. Affirmed.
Penner, Bradley & Buettner, Peter Sean Bradley and Randall M. Penner for
Defendants and Appellants.
Law Offices of George S. Burns and George S. Burns for Plaintiffs and
Respondents.
_____________________

-- 1 of 29 --

2
INTRODUCTION
The main issue in this appeal concerns how to resolve a dispute between a national
denomination and an affiliated local church about ownership and control of property of
the local church, Korean Hope Christian Church (Hope Church). This in turn involves
the meaning of Corporations Code section 91421 and whether its provisions authorize the
imposition of a trust on local church property in favor of the national denomination.
Defendants, the former pastor and former elders and members of the Hope Church,
appeal a judgment imposing a trust on that church’s real property in favor of the national
denominational church, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (PCUSA), quieting title in
PCUSA, and awarding injunctive relief. We conclude that, applying neutral principles of
law to this property dispute, substantial evidence supports the judgment. Moreover,
section 9142, subdivision (c)(2) applies to this case as a neutral principle of law, and the
trial court properly found that a trust was impressed on the assets of Hope Church in
favor of PCUSA. We further find that the trial court properly deferred to the
determination of the ecclesiastical body, PCUSA and its Hanmi Presbytery and Hope
Administrative Commission, of who constituted the true church of Hope Church.
Finally, we find that defendants have not shown that the proceedings of the Hope
Administration Commission denied them due process. We affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL and PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 7, 2004, plaintiffs Synod of Southern California and Hawaii,
Presbytery of Hanmi, Hope Church, a California non-profit religious corporation, and
Mark Hong filed a complaint against Kyung Suh Kim (Rev. Kim) and other defendants
who were elders and members of Hope Church. Although the complaint alleged 10
causes of action, only the first cause of action to enforce an express trust, the third cause
of action to enforce the terms of a constructive trust, and the fifth cause of action to quiet
1 Unless otherwise specified, statutes in this opinion will refer to the Corporations
Code.

-- 2 of 29 --

3
title went to trial. The trial court entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against Rev.
Kim and the other defendants, who appeal.
1. The PCUSA, its Organizational Hierarchy, and its Constitution:
PCUSA , the national religious denomination, was formed in 1983, when the
United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America and the Presbyterian Church
in the United States of America merged. The General Assembly is its highest governing
body. PCUSA has 16 regional synods, one of which is plaintiff Synod of Southern
California and Hawaii (Synod). Within each synod are presbyteries; the Synod has 8
presbyteries, one of which is Hanmi Presbytery, a non-geographic, Korean-language
presbytery organized to assist the Presbyterian Church in its ministry to Korean
immigrants. Below a presbytery are local church sessions, which are composed of
elected elders who govern a local congregation as the equivalent of a board of directors.
The session, not a local church pastor, has responsibility to carry out instructions from the
presbytery. The session, ministers, and church elders are required to follow the PCUSA
Constitution, and PCUSA member churches are required to accept the PCUSA
Constitution as their governing instrument.
PCUSA has a written constitution with two parts, a Book of Confessions
(collecting doctrinal confessions of the church) and a Book of Order. The Book of Order
has three parts, the “Form of Government,” the “Directory for Worship,” and the “Rules
of Discipline.” Chapter 8 of the Book of Order contains provisions concerning the
property of a local church, and provides that all property of the local church is held in
trust for the PCUSA denomination.2 Upon becoming a member of PCUSA, a church’s
property is transferred into trust for PCUSA. A local congregation may incorporate and
hold property, and normally the name of the local congregation is on the deed to its
2 Book of Order G-8.0201 states: “All property held by or for a particular church, a
presbytery, a synod, the General Assembly, or the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), whether
legal title is lodged in a corporation, a trustee or trustees, or an unincorporated
association, and whether the property is used in programs of a particular church or of a
more inclusive governing body or retained for the production of income, is held in trust
nevertheless for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).”

-- 3 of 29 --

4
property, as permitted by Book of Order section G-7.0402. As stated, the Book of Order
establishes a trust relationship for a local church’s property and states that the trustee is
the session (or trustees accountable to the session) of the local congregation. Pursuant to
section G-8.0201, trustees hold church property for the entire PCUSA denomination. If
the session fails to carry out its responsibilities, the presbytery is the successor trustee.
When a local church ceases to use church property in accordance with the PCUSA
Constitution, Book of Order section G-8.0300 requires that property to be held, used,
applied, transferred, or sold as provided by the presbytery. Section G-8.0500 prohibits a
local church or session from encumbering, mortgaging, selling, or leasing church
property without the presbytery’s written permission.
Book of Order section G-8.061 states that “[t]he relationship to the [PCUSA] of a
particular church can be severed only by constitutional action on the part of the
presbytery. (G-11.0103i) If there is a schism within the membership of a particular
church and the presbytery is unable to effect a reconciliation or a division into separate
churches within the [PCUSA], the presbytery shall determine if one of the factions is
entitled to the property because it is identified by the presbytery as the true church within
the [PCUSA]. This determination does not depend upon which faction received the
majority vote within the particular church at the time of the schism.”
Book of Order section G-9.0500 gives sessions, presbyteries, synods, and the
General Assembly the power to appoint administrative commissions, which have defined
authority over the next lower governing body. Pursuant to section G-9.0502, the
appointing body defines the duties and powers given to an administrative commission
when it is created. The scope of an administrative commission’s powers can include
receiving all power to act for the lower governing body; the administrative commission
can, for example, take over and exercise the power of a local church session.
2. Rev. Kim, the Hope Church, and its Membership in PCUSA:
Rev. Kim, former pastor of Hope Church, received an undergraduate degree from
Seoul National University in 1959, a Master of Divinity from Seoul Presbyterian
Seminary in 1961, and a Doctorate in Ministry from Claremont University School of

-- 4 of 29 --

5
Theology in 1983. In 1964 the Korean Presbyterian Church at Pyong Yang Presbytery in
Korea ordained Rev. Kim as a minister. After coming to the United States in 1965, Rev.
Kim was an associate minister at Los Angeles United Church, an independent
Presbyterian church, from 1965 to 1971. In 1971 he became pastor of Hope Church,
which was not affiliated with any national denomination.
Hope Church was first established in 1971. Rev. Kim was elected the president of
Hope Church in 1971; there has been no election of a church president since then. The
church was registered with the State of California in 1973. Originally based in
Hollywood, the Hope Church is now located in Cerritos. Although the congregation has
a meeting in January of each year, Rev. Kim had no minutes of those meetings and no
corporate resolutions before 2003. Rev. Kim testified that the session gave him absolute
authority to act for the benefit of Hope Church. On July 20, 2003, the Board of Trustees
of the Hope Church by resolution delegated all its powers to Rev. Kim, at his discretion,
to decide all matters of the church.
The Hope Church Articles of Incorporation filed in 1973 stated that By-Laws
would set forth the number and qualifications of corporation members, different classes
of members, members’ property, voting, and other rights and privileges, and members’
liabilities to dues and assessments and the method of collecting them. Although a “BY-
LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS” document was produced at trial, it was
unsigned. Dong Chul Cho was a member of the Hope Church since 1993, was very
active in the church, and became a member of the Session in 1999. When Cho joined the
church, Rev. Kim told him the church belonged to him, stating that just as a company
belongs to its president, the pastor owns the church. During a dispute about election of
church elders in 1994, Cho asked to see the by-laws for Hope Church, but Elder Byung
Kwan Min told him there was no set of by-laws. Cho never saw written minutes of
session meetings when he was a session member from 1999 to 2003.
3. Real Property of Hope Church:
The original grant deed of the Cerritos real property at issue to Hope Church was
dated May 24, 1987. By a grant deed dated March 5, 1990, Hope Church granted the real

-- 5 of 29 --

6
property to Rev. Kim and his wife as joint tenants. Rev. Kim signed the grant deed as
President of the Hope Church. Two years later he learned that the County levied property
tax of $20,000 to $30,000 because the church property, having been transferred to
individuals, no longer qualified for a tax exemption. Rev. Kim then caused the real
property to be transferred back to Hope Church by a grant deed of October 27, 1992. For
the years the property was in his name, Rev. Kim caused the church to pay property taxes
of $10,632.99 for 1990, and also caused the church to pay property taxes for 1991 and
1992. Hope Church acquired an additional adjacent property on May 1, 1996.
4. Hope Church Joins PCUSA:
Dong Chul Cho testified that after he joined Hope Church, he heard many rumors
from other church members about Rev. Kim, about the difficulty of finding a youth
pastor, and that there were no rules applied to any church elections. In early 1993, 40
people from the Korean Independent Presbyterian Church (KIPC) joined Hope Church.
KIPC was a PCUSA church. Cho and other church members heard about how PCUSA
handled church elections, concluded that PCUSA church elections were valid, and
wanted Hope Church to join PCUSA. Cho also heard discussions that the PCUSA had a
constitution and that PCUSA members were required to abide by its rules. In the months
before October 1995, church members frequently discussed the idea of joining PCUSA,
and on many occasions discussed PCUSA’s rules that member churches were required to
follow. Cho and other church members concluded that joining the PCUSA would benefit
the Hope Church. Cho talked with other church members to the effect that when a
church joins PCUSA, its property is subject to PCUSA’s control and supervision.
Members were concerned that because it was possible for Rev. Kim to place church
property in his name, it was necessary to join PCUSA to obtain the protection of PCUSA
rules. According to Cho, everyone liked the idea of joining PCUSA, and there were
discussions about how PCUSA rules would be applied to church elections and
discussions of how church property would be treated if the church joined PCUSA. Cho
heard other members state that once the church joined PCUSA, church property would
belong to PCUSA so Rev. Kim would no longer attempt to own church property and

-- 6 of 29 --

7
could not sell it without PCUSA’s permission. Church members who had come from
KIPC knew about the PCUSA property rules. Cho testified that the other congregants
unanimously agreed that they wanted PCUSA to own Hope Church. A church member
who came from the KIPC told how the KIPC pastor tried to secede from PCUSA with
church property, but PCUSA rules prevented that pastor from carrying out his plan.
Until 1995, the Hope Church was independent and not affiliated with any national
denomination. In 1995, Rev. Kim submitted an application for Hope Church to join
Hanmi Presbytery, Synod of Southern California and Hawaii, and PCUSA. In October
1995, Hope Church joined PCUSA. Also in 1995 Rev. Kim applied for a minister’s
admission to the Hanmi Presbytery. Hanmi Presbytery received Rev. Kim as a minister
on September 5, 1996.
Rev. Kim testified that he proposed to the Hope Church Session that the church
join PCUSA. When the church applied to join Hanmi Presbytery, Rev. Kim was aware
that PCUSA had a Constitution and a Book of Order whose rules governed PCUSA
member churches. He also testified that he knew that Hope Church would become
subject to the PCUSA Constitution, and he intended that the church would abide by and
be guided by the PCUSA Constitution. Later, on June 15, 2000, Rev. Kim signed a
“Covenant Between Active Members and Elders of Hanmi Presbytery and The
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)” stating that he promised that he would “abide and be
guided by the Constitution of the PC(U.S.A.).”
5. As Moderator of Hanmi Presbytery, Rev. Kim Relies on the Book of Order and
Its Trust Clause in Matters Involving Local Church Property:
Margaret Wentz, Corporate Secretary for the Synod, testified that a “moderator” is
the most senior office of Hanmi Presbytery, acts as chief presiding officer, has the power
of appointment, and serves on other important committees. Rev. Kim was interim
moderator of Hanmi Presbytery in 1999 and 2000.
During this period Rev. Kim abided by and relied on the Book of Order, and as
moderator acted to enforce its provisions in several proceedings. In March and May of
2000, Rev. Kim presided over meetings in which the Hanmi Presbytery created an

-- 7 of 29 --

8
administrative commission for the Young Eun Presbyterian Church to address a pastor’s
attempt to sell church property without authority and to address an improperly called
congregation meeting. In another matter involving the Orange County Presbyterian
Church, a dispute had arisen between church elders, who believed that church funds were
held in a restricted bank account as a building fund to acquire a church property; the
church’s pastor, however, had used that money from that account as operating funds. On
April 20, 1999, on behalf of Hanmi Presbytery, Rev. Kim sent written instructions to the
California Korean Bank in Garden Grove to freeze the $60,000 account of Orange
County Presbyterian Church and stating that the funds belonged to the Hanmi Presbytery.
On May 17, 1999, Rev. Kim participated in a Hanmi Presbytery Administration
Commission decision to authorize a civil suit to prevent the pastor of Orange County
Korean Presbyterian Church from using church building funds for operating expenses.
Rev. Kim verified a complaint filed by the Synod and Hanmi Presbytery against Orange
County Korean Presbyterian Church, alleging that this church was subject to the PCUSA
Book of Order and to its provision that local church property was held in trust for the use
and benefit of PCUSA. On behalf of the Hanmi Presbytery as moderator, Rev. Kim
signed a May 20, 1999, letter requesting the cooperation of California Korea Bank to
safeguard disputed church funds to permit resolution of the matter “consistent with the
rules governing [PCUSA].”
6. During Disputes Within Hope Church and Among Its Members, Rev. Kim
Again Relies on the Book of Order and Requests Intervention by Hanmi Presbytery:
In an August 5, 2001, letter to a Synod Executive, seven elders of Hope Church
reported that when Rev. Kim ignored a petition from the congregation requesting that the
session hold a congregational meeting, a majority of session members announced a
congregational meeting. The elders’ letter requested that the Synod and Hanmi
Presbytery intervene on the congregation’s behalf and provide a moderator for a
congregational meeting to: (1) effectuate the retirement of Rev. Kim as pastor and
establish him as Pastor Emeritus; (2) form a committee to search for the next pastor; and
(3) remove Rev. Kim and two elders as authorized signers of church checks. Rev. Kim

-- 8 of 29 --

9
responded in letters to the Committee of Ministry Chair, with copies to Hanmi Presbytery
and Synod officials. Rev. Kim notified them that the session had deleted three
individuals from the Hope Church membership roll according to The Book of Order,
G-10.0302b(4). Rev. Kim testified that he requested Hanmi Presbytery to come to Hope
Church and tell other church members to stop holding meetings in violation of the Book
of Order. Rev. Kim made other attempts to stop Hope Church members from conducting
what he considered to be an illegal congregational meeting. In a November 26, 2001,
letter, Rev. Kim stated that Presbyterian churches and members should faithfully observe
the Book of Order, and asked the Presbytery and Synod to show the Hope Church session
how it should treat members’ illegal activities.
7. The Hanmi Presbytery Forms the Hope Administrative Commission to Resolve
a Dispute Between Rev. Kim and Rev. Oh:
In January 2002, Bethel Presbyterian Church in Norwalk, California, and its
pastor, Rev. Oh, agreed to merge with Hope Church. Rev. Oh acted as a minister at Hope
Church for a period, but a dispute arose. In late 2002, Hanmi Presbytery received a
complaint from Rev. Oh that he was unfairly asked to leave, and that Hope Church no
longer paid his salary since he ceased to act as minister in September 2002. The
Presbytery Committee on Ministry investigated Rev. Oh’s complaint.
On January 3, 2003, Rev. Kim wrote an “Accusation” letter to the Hanmi
Presbytery. It alleged that pursuant to Book of Order section D-10.0102, Rev. Oh
committed a series of offenses: failing to transfer $100,000 in Bethel Presbyterian
Church assets to Hope Church; falsifying Rev. Oh’s personal history; making defamatory
statements on a Radio Korea broadcast; and claiming to be a minister of Hope Church
after he ceased to work there. Rev. Kim’s “accusation” requested referral of these
allegations to an investigation committee pursuant to Book of Order section D-10.0101.
Rev. Kim testified that when he wrote this letter, the Hanmi Presbytery had authority to
investigate Rev. Oh, to obtain the Bethel Presbyterian Church assets, and to expel Rev.
Oh from Hope Church. Under Book of Order section D-10.0102, subsection (a), Rev.
Kim considered himself and Rev. Oh under PCUSA jurisdiction.

-- 9 of 29 --

10
When the Presbytery Committee on Ministry investigating Rev. Oh’s complaint
did not receive Rev. Kim’s cooperation, it asked the Synod Administrative Commission
to form the Hope Administrative Commission. The Hope Administrative Commission
tried to mediate the dispute between Rev. Kim and Rev. Oh. When the Hope
Administrative Commission was impaneled on March 23, 2003, Hope Church had not
notified the Hanmi Presbytery that it had left PCUSA. When the Hope Administrative
Commission interviewed Rev. Kim on May 6, 2003, Rev. Kim had not informed that
Commission that he had renounced the PCUSA’s jurisdiction or that Hope Church had
left Hanmi Presbytery and PCUSA. From July through September 2003, Rev. Kim did
not inform the Hope Administrative Commission that he had left the PCUSA’s
jurisdiction.
In a complaint filed on June 3, 2003, Rev. Kim and Hope Church sued Rev. Oh for
breach of contract, embezzlement and/or conversion of church funds, and other causes of
action. That complaint identified Hope Church as “a member of [PCUSA].” Rev. Kim
testified that this allegation in the complaint was true as of June 3, 2003.
The mediation continued, but as of November 23, 2003, Rev. Kim ceased to
respond to the Hope Administrative Commission’s requests or its offer to meet with him,
and did not provide the membership, financial, and business records the Commission
requested. Rev. Kim did not attend a January 18, 2004, hearing and congregational
meeting convened to hear the positions of Revs. Kim and Oh. The Hope Administrative
Commission eventually concluded that he had not cooperated. Rev. Kim never provided
a set of Hope Church by-laws.
On December 17, 2002, Rev. Kim filed a complaint with the Permanent Judicial
Commission of the Synod, alleging that Hanmi Presbytery violated Book of Order
section G-11.0404(e) because Rev. Oh did not furnish satisfactory evidence of having
been removed as a minister from the prior denomination with which he was associated,
and the Hanmi Presbytery violated Book of Order section D-6.0202a by failing to correct
this irregularity after receiving notice of it from Rev. Kim.

-- 10 of 29 --

11
8. Rev. Kim Begins Efforts to End Hope Church’s Relationship With PCUSA:
Previously in January 2003, Rev. Kim had caused numerous Hope Church
members to sign written statements approving termination of the relationship between the
Hope Church and PCUSA. Rev. Kim told members who signed these termination
statements that they needed to preserve and protect the Hope Church, which was more
than 30 years old. Rev. Kim, however, never delivered the members’ termination
statements, and continued to take the position that Hope Church was still within PCUSA.
Hope Church members later signed declarations explaining why they had signed the
termination statements, and raised new allegations about Rev. Kim’s unauthorized
attempt to sell church property for $2.5 million.
After Rev. Kim received notice of the complaint Rev. Oh lodged with Hanmi
Presbytery, in January 2003 Rev. Kim informed his congregation that the presbytery
might create an administrative commission to resolve the dispute with Rev. Oh. Church
members knew that such an administrative commission might cause Rev. Kim to lose
control of Hope Church.
9. Hanmi Presbytery Authorizes the Hope Administrative Commission to Act as
the Session of Hope Church:
On March 25, 2003, Hanmi Presbytery authorized the Hope Administrative
Commission to act for and on behalf of Hope Church, including acting as that church’s
session. On April 4, 2003, the Hope Administrative Commission by resolution
confirmed that the prior Session of Hope Church was dismissed effective March 25,
2003, that the authority of all previous Hope Church representatives and authorized bank
account signatories was revoked and ineffective, and that the Hope Administrative
Commission assumed responsibilities of the Session and authorized and ratified all
necessary actions to safeguard records and assets of the Hope Church for PCUSA. The
Hope Administrative Commission elected a new moderator and president and a new
secretary and treasurer, who became the only current officers of Hope Church.
On April 1, 2003, an attorney purporting to represent Hope Church advised
officials of Hanmi Presbytery, the Synod, and PCUSA that by a unanimous vote of its

-- 11 of 29 --

12
board of directors and a majority of its membership, Hope Church terminated its
affiliation and relationship with Hanmi Presbytery, the Synod, and PCUSA. Nonetheless
in a September 30, 2003, letter to the Hope Administrative Commission and to the Synod
Administrative Commission, counsel for Rev. Kim stated that Rev. Kim had not
renounced jurisdiction of PCUSA. In 2003 Rev. Kim attended meetings of the Hope
Administrative Commission, and did not inform that Commission that he had renounced
PCUSA jurisdiction.
On April 18, 2003, Rev. Kim leased the Hope Church property to a third party
without authority from the board. Rev. Kim testified that he accepted no rent checks
pursuant to the lease and never intended the lessees to occupy the leased property, and
that he entered into the lease to obtain an advantage in his dispute with the PCUSA. Rev.
Kim also testified that he entered into a contract to sell the Hope Church parking lot for
$2.5 million, and a grant deed transferring that property to the Victorville Sarang Church
was recorded on June 13, 2003. The grant deed stated that the transfer of the property “is
a bonafide gift and grantor received nothing in return[.]” Rev. Kim testified that he
received nothing for the transfer of this property, and that by transferring the property to
the Victorville Sarang Church he intended to put the property beyond the reach of
PCUSA.
10. The Hope Administrative Commission Dissolves Rev. Kim’s Pastoral
Relationship With Hope Church: On November 25, 2003, the Hope Administrative
Commission made a preliminary decision to dissolve the pastoral relationship between
Hope Church and Rev. Kim. On January 7, 2004, the Synod of Southern California and
Hawaii, Presbytery of Hanmi, Hope Church, and Rev. Mark Hong (Moderator of the
Hope Administrative Commission) filed the initial complaint in this action against Rev.
Kim and other defendants. Before making a final determination, on January 18, 2004, the
Hope Administrative Commission held a hearing and congregational meeting to hear the
positions of pastors, members, and other interested persons. Although invited to attend
and respond to concerns expressed at the meeting, Rev. Kim did not attend or respond.

-- 12 of 29 --

13
On January 27, 2004, the Hope Administrative Commission dissolved the pastoral
relationship between Hope Church and Rev. Kim, effective February 1, 2004.
Judgment: After trial by the court, on June 13, 2006, the trial court entered
judgment for plaintiffs and against defendants. As part of the judgment, the trial court
issued a declaratory judgment finding that as of March 1995, all right, title or interest in
any real or personal property held in the name of or intended for Hope Church was and
continued to be held in trust for the use and benefit of PCUSA, to be used and applied as
directed by the Hope Administrative Commission and Hanmi Presbytery.
Hope Corp. (Korean Hope Christian Church, a California non-profit religious
corporation) was shown on legal title to real property known as 19319 and 19333
Carmenita Road, Cerritos, California. Any right, title, or interest of Hope Corp. in the
property and real property of Hope Church was, and at all times since October 1995 had
been, held in trust for the benefit of PCUSA. As of March 25, 2003, the disposition and
management of the Hope Church property and real property were subject to the exclusive
direction and disposition of the Hope Administrative Commission and Hanmi Presbytery.
The judgment also declared Hanmi Presbytery to be the fee simple owner of
property and real property of Hope Church. The judgment therefore quieted title to the
Hope Church property and real property in Hanmi Presbytery, and stated that no
defendants had any estate, right, title, interest, or claim, either legal or equitable, in or to
property or real property of the Hope Church. The judgment also awarded injunctive
relief to plaintiffs, permanently enjoined defendants from interfering with the actions of
Hanmi Presbytery and its Hope Administrative Commission, including without limitation
acting as the session or board of directors of defendant Hope Corp., and from
encumbering or attempting to encumber the Hope Church property or real property. The
judgment ordered all defendants to give up possession of the Hope Church property and
real property to the control of the Hope Administrative Commission.
Appeal: Rev. Kim and other defendants filed a timely notice of appeal.

-- 13 of 29 --

14
ISSUES
Defendants claim on appeal that:
1. Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden in demonstrating that a trust existed in
favor of PCUSA, and the trial court erred in so holding;
2. As a matter of law, Hope Church had the power to leave the PCUSA and once
it had done so, the PCUSA did not have secular power over Hope Church;
3. Defendants were denied due process, as they received no right to be heard by
the Hope Administrative Commission as required by the Book of Order.
DISCUSSION
1. Civil Courts Resolve Church Property Disputes by Neutral Principles of Law
The main issue in this appeal concerns how to resolve the dispute concerning
ownership and control of Hope Church property. This in turn involves the question in
what circumstances the civil court will enforce rules and regulations found in
ecclesiastical governing instruments. It also involves the meaning of section 9142 and its
effect on assets of a religious corporation. We first set forth the principles applicable to
church property disputes. These principles derive from Jones v. Wolf (1979) 443 U.S.
595 and Protestant Episcopal Church v. Barker (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 599 (Barker).
The property dispute in Barker resulted from a controversy about church doctrine.
Dissatisfied with how the national church’s general convention resolved this controversy,
four local church congregations seceded from regional and national church bodies, but
kept possession of local church property they held as local membership corporations
created under the California nonprofit corporation law. The national church and the
regional diocese sued the local churches to obtain title to and possession of their
properties. The issue was whether local church organizations could keep church property
held in their own names or whether they had to surrender it to regional and national
church organizations as property held in trust for the general church. (Barker, supra,
115 Cal.App.3d at pp. 604-605.)

-- 14 of 29 --

15
After first citing the rule that an owner of legal title is presumed to be the owner of
full beneficial title to real property,3 Barker analyzed three possible theories by which the
general church organizations could try to rebut this presumption.
First, under the hierarchical theory, centralized church control over church
property supersedes civil law disposition of such property, and the centralized church’s
governing rules override state law disposition of local church property. (Barker, supra,
115 Cal.App.3d at p. 605.)
Second, under the implied trust theory, “a local church accepts and holds local
church property for the benefit of the entire membership of the general church” with
which it is affiliated. The local church holds its church property as a charitable trust to
benefit the specific religious use in effect when it acquired the property. The local church
is prohibited from applying the church property to a different religious use, and if it does
so “the property reverts to a trustee who must apply it to its original religious purpose.”
(Barker, supra, 115 Cal.App.3d at p. 606.)
Third, express trust theory “relies on title deeds, articles of incorporation, canons
and rules of the organizations concerned and statutes, to establish that a local church
holds property under an express trust for the benefit of the general church membership as
embodied in its regional and national organizations.” (Barker, supra, 115 Cal.App.3d at
p. 606.)
Barker evaluated these three theories against the constitutional principal that
“under the First Amendment a civil court is not allowed to adjudicate church property
disputes by interpreting religious doctrine and practice and then relying on its own
interpretation of doctrine to allocate control over church property.” (Barker, supra,
115 Cal.App.3d at p. 612.) However, Barker held that courts charged with resolving
church property disputes can use “ ‘neutral principles of law, developed for use in all
property disputes,’ ” without violating the First Amendment by “establishing” churches
3 See Evidence code section 662: “The owner of the legal title to property is
presumed to be the owner of the full beneficial title. This presumption may be rebutted
only by clear and convincing proof.”

-- 15 of 29 --

16
found to be entitled to the property. (Ibid.) Barker cited the United States Supreme
Court’s approval of the state courts’ use of “neutral principles of law” to settle church
property disputes by examining “title deeds, statutes, corporate charters, and constitution,
rules, and regulations of the general church.” (Id. at pp. 612-614, citing Jones v. Wolf,
supra, 443 U.S. 595.) Because it is difficult to separate issues of control over church
property from issues of church authority over doctrinal controversy, “neutral principles of
law promise to free a court from the necessity of inquiry into church doctrine, polity, and
practice, and allow it to rely on objective, well-established concepts of trust and property
law to dispose of disputed church property.” (Barker, at p. 613.)
Barker concluded that California law rejected use of the hierarchical theory to
resolve church property disputes, and instead adopted the “neutral principles of law” in
its place. (Barker, supra, 115 Cal.App.3d at p. 614-615.)
Barker also concluded that difficulties associated with the “use of the implied trust
theory, once evaluation of theology and doctrine has been forbidden, remain
insurmountable[,]” and thus found that “the implied trust doctrine provides no valid basis
for transferring church property from the congregation in whose name the property is
held to the general church.” (Barker, supra, 115 Cal.App.3d at p. 620.)
By contrast, the third theory, whether an express trust in local church property
existed for the benefit of the general church, could be determined by the same neutral
principles of law used to resolve property disputes between secular entities. (Barker,
supra, 115 Cal.App.3d at p. 621.) “In determining the presence or absence of an express
trust in specific church property a court will look at four general sets of facts: (1) the
deeds to the property, (2) the articles of incorporation of the local church, (3) the
constitution, canons, and rules of the general church, and (4) relevant state statutes, if
any, governing possession and disposition of such property.” These four general sets of
facts are applied together, not singly, in determining whether an express trust on local
church property has been created in favor of the general or denominational church.
(Ibid.; Korean United Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery of the Pacific (1991)
230 Cal.App.3d 480, 510, disapproved on an unrelated ground, Moreheart v. County of

-- 16 of 29 --

17
Santa Barbara (1994) 7 Cal.4th 725, 743.) Subsequent cases have adopted these neutral
principles of law to resolve church property disputes. (Korean United Presbyterian
Church v. Presbytery of the Pacific, supra, at p. 498; Korean Philadelphia Presbyterian
Church v. California Presbytery (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1069, 1081; Guardian Angel
Polish Nat. Catholic Church of L.A., Inc. v. Grotnik (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 919, 930;
Concord Christian Center v. Open Bible Standard Churches (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th
1396, 1408; but see California-Nevada Annual Conf. of the United Methodist Church v.
St. Luke’s United Methodist Church (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 754, 766-772.)
As we discuss further post, the use of neutral principles of law to resolve church
property disputes has a concomitant principle. The First Amendment “requires that civil
courts defer to the resolution of issues of religious doctrine or polity by the highest court
of a hierarchical church organization.” (Jones v. Wolf, supra, 443 U.S. at p. 602.)
“[A] state court may resolve disputes over church property through use of neutral
principles of law . . . but if the civil court is required to resolve a religious controversy, it
must then defer to the resolution of the doctrine issue by the authoritative ecclesiastical
body.” (Korean United Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery of the Pacific, supra,
230 Cal.App.3d at p. 498.)
2. Section 9142, Subdivision (c)(2)
The Barker decision came before an important statutory change. In 1982, the
California Legislature amended section 9142 by adding subdivisions (c) and (d). Section
9142 is part of the Nonprofit Religious Corporation Law (§ 9110 et seq), which
authorizes the formation of a corporation for religious purposes (§ 9111). The powers of
such a nonprofit religious corporation include the power to “[a]ct as a trustee under any
trust incidental to the principal objects of the corporation, and receive, hold, administer,
exchange, and expend funds and property subject to such trust.” (§ 9140, subd. (k).)
Section 9142, subdivision (a) identifies those parties which may bring an action to
remedy a breach of a trust under which any or all of the assets of a nonprofit religious
corporation are held. Subdivision (b) imposes some requirements on a court’s power to
rescind or enjoin the performance of a contract. Subdivision (c) states:

-- 17 of 29 --

18
“(c) No assets of a religious corporation are or shall be deemed to be impressed
with any trust, express or implied, statutory or at common law unless one of the
following applies:
“(1) Unless, and only to the extent that, the assets were received by the
corporation with an express commitment by resolution of its board of directors to so hold
those assets in trust.
“(2) Unless, and only to the extent that, the articles or bylaws of the corporation,
or the governing instruments of a superior religious body or general church of which the
corporation is a member, so expressly provide.
“(3) Unless, and only to the extent that, the donor expressly imposed a trust, in
writing, at the time of the gift or donation.”
Section 9142, subdivision (c)(2) is the provision that is relevant to this appeal.
3. Application of Neutral Principles of Law Supports the Judgment Imposing an
Express Trust on Hope Church Real Property
We review the trial court’s judgment as follows. To the extent the judgment
depends on judicial interpretations of the constitution, by-laws, and other governing
documents of PCUSA and Hope Church, this court applies neutral principles of law de
novo. To the extent that the judgment resolves disputed factual questions, we review
according to the substantial evidence test, and consider all the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prevailing parties, giving them the benefit of every reasonable inference
and resolving conflicts in support of the judgment. (Concord Christian Center v. Open
Bible Standard Churches, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1408-1409.)
We apply the four Barker factors to the facts of this case.
(1) Deeds to the property: The original grant deed of church property, dated May
24, 1987, showed that title was held as Korean Hope Christian Church, a California
Corporation. In 1990, Korean Hope Christian Church Corporation conveyed the church
real property to Rev. Kim and his wife, who two years later transferred the property back
to Hope Church on October 27, 1992. Thus at the time it joined PCUSA, Hope Church

-- 18 of 29 --

19
held title to the church property. After Hope Church joined PCUSA in 1995, Hope
Church acquired a second church property on May 1, 1996.
(2) Local church articles of incorporation and by-laws: the Articles of
Incorporation of Hope Church were filed with the California Secretary of State on May 8,
1973. The record contains a copy of the Hope Church By-Laws, Rules, and Regulations,
which appears to date from 1973, but this copy is not certified by the church secretary
and is unsigned. Neither document refers to PCUSA. There was evidence that Rev. Kim
treated the church as his own and believed he had absolute authority to act on behalf of
Hope Church, that no written corporate resolutions or minutes of session meetings were
kept, no election rules applied to church elections, and that at least one church elder
stated that there were no church by-laws. Thus substantial evidence supports the trial
court’s finding that it was irrelevant that neither the Hope Church by-laws or articles of
incorporation referred to PCUSA.
(3) Constitution, canons, and rules of the general church, PCUSA: PCUSA has a
written constitution with two parts, a Book of Confessions and a Book of Order. Chapter
8 of the Book of Order contains provisions concerning local church property. Book of
Order G-8.0200 states: “All property held by or for a particular church, a presbytery, a
synod, the General Assembly, or the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), whether legal title is
lodged in a corporation, a trustee or trustees, or an unincorporated association, and
whether the property is used in programs of a particular church or of a more inclusive
governing body or retained for the production of income, is held in trust nevertheless for
the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).” Upon becoming a member of
PCUSA, a church’s property is transferred into trust for PCUSA. Book of Order G-
8.0500 prohibits a local church or Session from encumbering, mortgaging, selling, or
leasing church property without the presbytery’s written permission.
Hope Church joined PCUSA in 1995. Church members were aware that PCUSA
had a constitution which set forth rules which member churches were required to follow.
Church members also knew that when a church joined PCUSA, its property became
subject to PCUSA’s control and supervision, and they desired this protection of PCUSA

-- 19 of 29 --

20
rules. There was evidence that members desired that once Hope Church joined PCUSA,
church property would belong to PCUSA so that Rev. Kim would no longer attempt to
own church property and could not sell it without PCUSA’s permission.
(4) Relevant state statutes governing possession and disposition of such property:
The relevant statute is section 9142, subdivision (c)(2), stating: “(c) No assets of a
religious corporation are or shall be deemed to be impressed with any trust, express or
implied, statutory or at common law unless one of the following applies:
“[¶] . . . [¶]
“(2) Unless, and only to the extent that, the articles or bylaws of the corporation,
or the governing instruments of a superior religious body or general church of which the
corporation is a member, so expressly provide.”
Thus an express trust can be deemed to be impressed on assets of a religious
corporation such as Hope Church if expressly provided in either the articles or by-laws of
Hope Church, or the governing instruments of a superior religious body or general church
of which Hope Church is a member, i.e., PCUSA. It is not required that the articles or
by-laws of the local religious corporation expressly impress a trust on its assets; the trust
can be created by the governing instrument of PCUSA, the superior religious body or
general church. “[P]rovisions in the ‘constitution of the general church’ can override any
right the majority of a local congregation might otherwise have to control local church
property.” (Metropolitan Philip v. Steiger (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 923, 931; Jones v.
Wolf, supra, 443 U.S. at pp. 607-608; Guardian Angel Polish Nat. Catholic Church of L.
A., Inc. v. Grotnik, supra, 118 Cal.App.4th at p. 930.) Where the constitution of the
general church recites an express trust in favor of the denominational church, “the civil
courts will be bound to give effect to the result indicated by the parties, provided it is
embodied in some legally cognizable form.” (Jones v. Wolf, supra, at p. 606.)
The facts show that Hope Church affiliated with PCUSA with knowledge of the
property provision in the PCUSA constitution, and thus subjected itself to the express
restraints on local church property found in the Book of Order, which contained a
provision that local church property of affiliated congregations was held in trust for the

-- 20 of 29 --

21
use and benefit of the PCUSA. Section 9142, subdivision (c)(2) therefore supports the
creation of a trust imposed on property of Hope Church in favor of PCUSA based on the
property provision in the PCUSA Book of Order. The judgment therefore should be
affirmed.
4. Defendants Have Not Shown That a Trust Impressed on Assets of a Religious
Corporation Pursuant to Section 9142(c)(2) Was Invalid
Defendants cite Evidence Code section 662, which states: “The owner of the legal
title to property is presumed to be the owner of the full beneficial title. This presumption
may be rebutted only by clear and convincing proof.” Defendants claim that plaintiffs
failed to provide clear and convincing proof that their beneficial interest complied with
section 9142, subdivision (c)(2), and that the trial court erroneously found that the
property provision in Book of Order G-8.0200 applied and created a trust under section
9142, subdivision (c)(2).
Defendants first argue that neither deeds to the church property nor the articles of
incorporation of Hope Church create a trust. Section 9142, subdivision (c)(2), however,
authorizes the creation of a trust if “the governing instruments of a superior religious
body or general church of which the corporation is a member . . . expressly provide.”
Thus the property provision in Book of Order G-8.0200 is sufficient to support the
creation of an express trust pursuant to section 9142, subdivision (c)(2). We reiterate that
“provisions in the ‘constitution of the general church’ can override any right the majority
of a local congregation might otherwise have to control the local church property.”
(Metropolitan Philip v. Steiger, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 931; Jones v. Wolf, supra,
443 U.S. at pp. 607-608; Guardian Angel Polish Nat. Catholic Church of L.A., Inc. v.
Grotnik, supra, 118 Cal.App.4th at p. 930.) Where the constitution of the general church
recites an express trust in favor of the denominational church, “the civil courts will be
bound to give effect to the result indicated by the parties, provided it is embodied in some
legally cognizable form.” (Jones v. Wolf, supra, at p. 606.)
Defendants further argue that the Book of Order G-8.0200 cannot create a trust
pursuant to section 9142, subdivision (c)(2), because a valid trust requires a competent

-- 21 of 29 --

22
trustor’s intention to create a trust, a trustee, an estate conveyed to the trustee, the
trustee’s acceptance of the trust, a beneficiary, a legal purpose, and legal terms (Reagh v.
Kelley (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 1082, 1089.) Section 9142, subdivision (c)(2), however,
authorizes the assets of a religious corporation to “be deemed to be impressed” with an
express trust if, as in this case, “the governing instruments of a superior religious body or
general church of which the corporation is a member, so expressly provide.” Subdivision
(d) of section 9142 refers to “[t]rusts created by paragraph (2) of subdivision (c)[.]”
Section 9142, subdivision (c)(2) thus authorizes the creation of a trust on the assets of a
religious corporation without all elements required by Reagh v. Kelley. “The statutory
provisions governing nonprofit religious corporations discuss various methods by which
the assets of a religious corporation may be deemed to be impressed with an express or
implied trust. (See Corp. Code, § 9142, subd. (c).)” (Korean Philadelphia Presbyterian
Church v. California Presbytery, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1088-1089, fn. 20.) The
creation of a trust by the governing instruments of a superior religious body or general
church of which the corporation is a member is one such method, and there is no
requirement that the local church’s articles of incorporation or by-laws must contain an
express reference to the higher body’s rules or laws. (Id. at p. 1088.) When the
governing instrument of a superior religious body or general church creates the trust, no
provision of express trust is required in the local church by-laws or articles of
incorporation. (Korean United Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery of the Pacific, supra,
230 Cal.App.3d at p. 510.)
We reject defendants’ argument that section 9142, subdivision (c)(2) merely
creates an implied trust and therefore did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that
a trust in favor of PCUSA rebutted the Evidence Code section 662 presumption that the
owner of legal title to property also owns full beneficial title. Instead the property
provision in Book of Order G-8.0200 created an express trust authorized by section 9142,
subdivision (c)(2). If any conflict between Evidence code section 662 and section 9142,
subdivision (c)(2) exists, the latter is the more specific statute and prevails over the
former, more general one. (Garcia v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 478.)

-- 22 of 29 --

23
Defendants’ discussion of the legislative intent of section 9142 is unnecessary,
because the meaning of that statute is clear. Where statutory language is clear and
unambiguous, we follow its plain meaning and do not look elsewhere for evidence of
legislative intent. (Kobzoff v. Los Angeles County Harbor/UCLA Medical Center (1998)
19 Cal.4th 851, 861.)
Defendants rely on California-Nevada Annual Conf. Of the United Methodist
Church v. St. Luke’s United Methodist Church, supra, 121 Cal.App.4th 754 (St. Luke’s)
as holding that section 9142 is not intended to supplant basic principles of trust law. In
St. Luke’s, the local church was incorporated and affiliated with a national denomination,
The United Methodist Church. The national church’s governing instrument, the Book of
Discipline, stated that the United Methodist Church’s “ ‘conferences, councils, boards,
agencies, local churches, and other units bearing the name “United Methodist” ’ ” were
the entities possessing legal capacities. (St. Luke’s, at p. 758.) The Book of Discipline
required titles to local church properties to be held in trust for the United Methodist
Church, set forth trust language to be used in instruments of conveyance, and stated that
the absence of a trust clause in previously executed deeds and conveyances would not
exclude a local church from its “connectional responsibilities” to the United Methodist
Church. From 1949 to 1998, the local church acquired title to nine properties; five grant
deeds contained trust clauses in favor of the national denomination, while four grant
deeds did not. (Id. at pp. 758-759.)
A doctrinal dispute arose in 1999 and 2000. Many local church members were on
one side; their bishop was on the other. In August 2000, the bishop replaced the pastor of
the local church with a new pastor. The day after the new pastor was introduced to
people at the church, he was locked out of the church.
Representatives of the national church sued the local church and the president of
the local church’s board of trustees for breach of a charitable trust, seeking injunctive
relief and damages. The local church cross-complained, seeking declaratory relief and a
declaration that plaintiffs had no interest in the property and that the local church could
revoke any trust interest in real property by recording grant deeds, and deeding the

-- 23 of 29 --

24
property to itself without any trust language. Before trial, the local church amended its
articles of incorporation to disaffiliate itself with the United Methodist Church and to
provide that it held its property in trust for itself only. (St. Luke’s, supra,
121 Cal.App.4th at pp. 760-761.) After a trial, the trial court found that there was a trust
interest in favor of the United Methodist Church and that the local church could not and
did not unilaterally revoke that trust. The trial court also ordered injunctive relief in favor
of plaintiffs, directing the local church to execute and record deeds to the local church
property with trust language in favor of the United Methodist Church. (Id. at p. 761.)
St. Luke’s reversed this judgment. Although St. Luke’s found that substantial
evidence supported the finding that a trust interest was created in favor of the United
Methodist Church, the decision also concluded that the local church could and did revoke
that trust. The St. Luke’s opinion asserts that interpreting section 9142, subdivision (c)(2)
as authorizing a general church to create a trust in favor of itself with the trust property
being the local church’s property is “at odds with other general principles of trust law,”
and states that “nothing in the statute appears to have been intended to create a new kind
of trust which had not previously existed.” (St. Luke’s, supra, 121 Cal.App.4th at
pp. 769, 770.) This, however, is dicta. The St. Luke’s opinion found that the Book of
Discipline of the United Methodist Church did not by itself create the trust. Instead, “the
local church’s articles of incorporation, and the presence of trust language on five of the
nine deeds, demonstrated an intent to be bound by the rules of the Book of Discipline,
i.e., an intent to hold the property in trust for the benefit of both the local church and the
United Methodist Church. Thus if the trust in favor of the United Methodist Church was
a trust ‘created by [section 9142, subdivision (c)(2)],’ that trust could be amended or
dissolved by amending the St. Luke’s articles of incorporation to expressly state that St.
Luke’s would not be ‘affiliated with’ or ‘subject . . . to the . . . discipline . . . of the United
Methodist Church,’ and that it would hold property ‘in trust for the sole benefit of this
Corporation.’ ” (Id. at pp. 770-771.)
Even if it is true that a trust created pursuant to section 9142, subdivision (c)(2) is
“at odds with other general principles of trust law,” the Legislature has nonetheless

-- 24 of 29 --

25
authorized the creation of such trusts as part of the Nonprofit Religious Corporation Law.
Section 9142, subdivision (d) expressly refers to the validity of such trusts when it refers
to “[t]rusts created by paragraph (2) of subdivision (c)[.]” St. Luke’s, moreover, is
factually distinguishable from the case at bench, in which the dispute about church
property arose because of a division or “schism” of the Hope Church into two
congregations (one of which, pursuant to the Book of Order, was subsequently declared
to be the true church), rather than, as in St. Luke’s, the attempt by a congregation to
disaffiliate from, and to revoke its trust in favor of, that national church. We therefore
find that St. Luke’s does not govern this appeal.
5. The Trial Court Properly Deferred to the Determination by PCUSA, Hanmi
Presbytery, and the Hope Administrative Commission of Who Constituted the
True Church of Hope Church
Defendants have raised an issue relating to the ability of Hope Church to secede
from PCUSA. The judgment has determined that a trust on property of Hope Church was
created in favor of PCUSA, and has also quieted title in the Hanmi Presbytery, an entity
of PCUSA. We affirm this judgment. Therefore whether Hope Church can secede from
PCUSA no longer has any importance to the disposition of the real property of Hope
Church. It only has importance to the request for injunctive relief in the complaint,
which sought such injunctive relief as might be necessary to assure control over the real
property by the Hope Administrative Commission and Hanmi Presbytery. In that context
we address defendants’ argument that Hope church had the power to leave PCUSA and
once it did so, PCUSA had no secular power over Hope Church.
Defendants rely on Barker, supra, 115 Cal.App.3d 599, which states: “Under
neutral principles of law if a local body affiliated with a national body holds title to
property in its own name and later secedes, the national body has little basis to claim that
such property is held in trust for it. (Evid. Code, § 662; Civ. Code, § 1105.) If a local
organization secedes from one national entity and affiliates with another, absent other
factors no claim can be laid to property owned by and held in the name of the local
organization.” (Barker, at p. 622; italics added.) “Another factor” arose after Barker was

-- 25 of 29 --

26
decided: the legislature enacted section 9412, subdivision (c)(2), which authorized an
express trust over assets of a religious corporation based on governing instruments of a
superior religious body or general church of which that corporation is a member.
Moreover, one of the four defendant local churches in Barker had incorporated after a
Diocesan cannon declared that on dissolution of a local church, its property became
distributable to the Diocese and specifically identified that local church as a subordinate
body of a national body pursuant to provisions of the Corporations Code. Thus Barker
found that this local church’s assets were subject to an express trust in favor of the
Diocese. (Barker, at pp. 623-625.)
There is an additional difference between the facts of Barker and those of the case
at bench. None of the four churches in Barker who sought to disaffiliate with the
national church had divided congregations in “schism,” each of which schismatic groups
claimed to be the true church. That division or “schism,” by contrast, did occur in the
Hope Church, with Rev. Kim and some of his followers attempting to take control of the
Hope Church and its assets, and other Hope Church members opposing those efforts. In
this circumstance the question is not whether a local church can secede and disaffiliate
from the national denomination. Instead the issue is how to resolve claims of competing
portions of the church membership to be the true church and of possession and control of
its assets. (See Metropolitan Philip v. Steiger, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 930-931.)
Hope Church, by joining PCUSA, subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the national
denomination and its constitution, the Book of Order. Book of Order G-8.0600 states:
“The relationship to the [PCUSA] of a particular church can be severed only by
constitutional action on the part of the presbytery. (G-11.0103i) If there is a schism
within the membership of a particular church and the presbytery is unable to effect a
reconciliation or a division into separate churches within the [PCUSA], the presbytery
shall determine if one of the factions is entitled to the property because it is identified by
the presbytery as the true church within the [PCUSA]. This determination does not
depend upon which faction received the majority vote within the particular church at the

-- 26 of 29 --

27
time of the schism.” The Hanmi Presbytery made this determination, to which the trial
court was bound to defer.
In a hierarchical church, individual churches are organized as a body with other
local churches and with a common ruling convocation or ecclesiastical head, which has
ultimate ecclesiastical authority over individual congregations and members. A local
congregation affiliating with the national church is bound by the government, control,
orders, and judgments of the national church. (Concord Christian Center v. Open Bible
Standard Churches, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 1409.) Civil courts can apply neutral
principles of law to resolve disputes about ownership and control of church property,
“unless this determination depends on the resolution of an ecclesiastical controversy over
religious doctrine, practice or polity.” (Id. at p. 1411, fn. omitted.) To the extent that
interpretation or construction of the governing documents of a religious organization
(church constitution, articles of incorporation, bylaws, or instruments of property
ownership) “involves the resolution of a matter of ecclesiastical doctrine, polity or
administration, the civil court must defer to the resolution of the issue by the
‘authoritative ecclesiastical body.’ [Citation.] [S]uch ecclesiastical matters include not
only issues of religious doctrine per se, but also issues of membership, clergy credentials
and discipline, and church polity and administration.” (Ibid.) “[T]he identification of a
religious body as the true church is an ecclesiastical issue.” (Korean United Presbyterian
Church v. Presbytery of the Pacific, supra, 230 Cal.App.3d at p. 500.)
“[T]he First and Fourteenth Amendments permit hierarchical religious
organizations to establish their own rules and regulations for internal discipline and
government, and to create tribunals for adjudicating disputes over these matters. When
this choice is exercised and ecclesiastical tribunals are created to decide disputes over the
government and direction of subordinate bodies, the Constitution requires that civil courts
accept their decisions as binding upon them.” (Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v.
Milivojevich (1976) 426 U.S. 696, 724-725.)

-- 27 of 29 --

28
The determination of which faction of Hope Church represented the true church
was an issue of religious doctrine, membership, and church polity and administration.
The trial court therefore was required to, and properly did, defer to the determination of
this issue by PCUSA, through the Hanmi Presbytery and its Hope Administrative
Commission. We find no error in that ruling by the trial court.
6. Defendants Have Not Shown That Proceedings of the Hope Administrative
Commission Denied Due Process
Defendants claim that they were denied due process under PCUSA rules, because
PCUSA did not notify them that it intended to convene an administrative commission,
and Hope Church was only informed of that action after it happened and after Hope
Church had disaffiliated from PCUSA.
Defendants cite Book of Order G-9.0505b as the basis for their claim of lack of
notice. G-9.0505b states: “(1) When an administrative commission has been appointed
to settle differences within a church, a governing body, or an organization of the church,
it shall, before making its final decision, afford to all persons to be affected by the
decision fair notice and an opportunity to be heard on the matters at issue. (See G-
9.0503a(4), a(6), G-9.0505b-d.) Fair notice shall consist of a short and plain statement of
the matters at issue as identified by the commission and of the time and place for a
hearing upon the matters at issue. The hearing shall include at least an opportunity for all
persons in interest to have their positions on the matters at issue stated orally.”
Nothing in the quoted section G-9.0505b requires notice of the intention to
convene the administrative commission. Instead it requires that all persons to be affected
by the decision receive notice and an opportunity to be heard. Defendants received that
notice and opportunity to be heard before the Hope Administrative Commission’s final
determination. We find no merit to this claim.

-- 28 of 29 --

29
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to the respondents.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
KITCHING, J.
We concur:
KLEIN, P. J.
ALDRICH, J.

-- 29 of 29 --