St. Mathew Lutheran Church v. Delhi Twp., 257 N.W.2d 183 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). · Go Syfert
Search
St. Mathew Lutheran Church v. Delhi Twp., 257 N.W.2d 183 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
33 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: West Mi Annual Conf of the United Methodist Church v. Grand Rapids (michctapp, 2021-02-25)
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1977 2001 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) West Mi Annual Conf of the United Methodist Church v. Grand Rapids
Mich. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
A dissent would have found that the lay ministers were ministers; the dissenting judge stated that the residences were “occupied by ‘ministers of the gospel,’ ” and that “I find no requirement that the ministers be formally ordained.” Id. at 600 (WALSH, J., dissenting).
discussed Cited "see" Indiana Ass'n of Seventh-Day Adventists v. State Board of Tax Commissioners (2×)
Ind. T.C. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Saint Matthew Lutheran Church v. Delhi Township, Ingham County (1977), 76 Mich.App. 597 , 257 N.W.2d 183 ; In Re Marlow (1977), 269 S.C. 219 , 237 S.E.2d 57 ; Blackwood Brothers Evangelistic Association v. State Board of Equalization (1980), Tenn.App., 614 S.W.2d 364 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Asher Student Foundation v. City of East Lansing
Mich. Ct. App. · 1979 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, St Mathew Lutheran Church v Delhi Twp, 76 Mich App 597 ; 257 NW2d 183 (1977), where this Court held that § 7, ¶ 4, has no application to property owned by a church and occupied by church employees.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
St. Mathew Lutheran Church
v.
Delhi Township
Docket 28975.
Michigan Court of Appeals.
Jul 7, 1977.
257 N.W.2d 183
Crippen, Dever, Urquhart & Cmejrek, for plaintiff., Church, Wyble, Kritselis & Tesseris (by Thomas H. Hay), for defendant.
Walsh, Quinn, Stair.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published

Lead Opinion

Quinn, J.

Plaintiff appeals from a decision of the Michigan Tax Tribunal which upheld a decision of defendant’s board of tax assessors denying tax exemption to four parcels of real estate owned by plaintiff. The parcels are identified in the record and will be referred to as DP-4872, DP-3779, D-14-19-3 and D-14-19-2.

Parcels DP-4872 and DP-3779 contain houses occupied by Mr. Krause and Mr. Jaskierny respectively. The former is superintendent of the school operated by plaintiff and the latter is an instructor in the school and a youth minister of the church. Neither is ordained and they are referred to as lay ministers. Parcel D-14-19-3 is a vacant lot adjacent to the church parking lot and the school playground. It is used as a fringe area to the playground. Parcel D-14-19-2 contains a house occupied by the widow of a deceased minister. One Bible[*599] class per week is held there and the widow operates a Christian bookstore therein.

MCLA 211.7; MSA 7.7 creates the exemption and the relevant portion reads:

"Fifth, All houses of public worship, with the land on which they stand, the furniture therein and all rights in the pews, and also any parsonage owned by any religious society of this state and occupied as such.”

Tax exemption statutes are to be strictly construed in favor of the taxing unit, Michigan Baptist Homes and Development Co v Ann Arbor, 396 Mich 660; 242 NW2d 749 (1976). In St. Joseph’s Church v Detroit, 189 Mich 408; 155 NW 588 (1915), the Supreme Court said:

"A parsonage may be defined as a house in which a minister of the gospel resides. In its ecclesiastical sense the word was 'glebe (or land) and house’ belonging to a parish appropriated to the maintenance of the incumbent, or settled pastor of a church; but its modern general signification is in the sense of its being the residence of a parson, and it may be with land or without it.”

We conclude from the statutory language creating the exemption and the Supreme Court’s definition of "parsonage” that the exemption applies to any church owned house occupied by a minister ordained in that church. None of the parcels here involved qualify for the exemption.

We further conclude that MCLA 211.7; MSA 7.7 subsection fourth, has no application to property owned by a church and occupied by church employees.

Affirmed but without costs.

H. D. Stair, J., concurred.

Dissent

[*600] D. F. Walsh, P. J.

(dissenting). I must dissent from the conclusion reached by the majority with reference to parcels DP-4872 and DP-3779. These parcels are homes owned by a "religious society” and occupied by "ministers of the gospel”. Cf. MCLA 211.7; MSA 7.7, St. Joseph’s Church v Detroit, 189 Mich 408; 155 NW 588 (1915). I find no requirement that the ministers be formally ordained.