O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 14-3-180 (2019)

Construction of chapter when religious doctrine inconsistent

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

If religious doctrine governing the affairs of a corporation is inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter on the same subject, the religious doctrine shall control to the extent required by the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of this state or both.

History

(Code 1981, § 14-3-180, enacted by Ga. L. 1991, p. 465, § 1.)

Annotations

Code Commission notes. - Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1991, ‘‘Consti-

tution’’ was substituted for ‘‘constitution’’ preceding ‘‘of this state’’.

COMMENT This section is taken from the Model Act. In the absence of this section, some provisions of this Code might, if applied to religious corporations, conflict with the United States Constitution or the Constitution of the State of Georgia. JUDICIAL DECISIONS Jurisdiction over church property dispute. - The First Amendment did not prohibit appellate jurisdiction over an action by church members against a pastor and church seeking dissolution of the church, appointment of a receiver, an injunction against the defendant’s disposing of corporate assets, and proper disposition of the assets; the dispute was capable of

resolution by reference to neutral principles of law, i.e., applicable provisions of the Georgia Nonprofit Corporation Code, O.C.G.A. § 14-3-101 et seq., without infringing upon any First Amendment values. Crocker v. Stevens, 210 Ga. App. 231, 435 S.E.2d 690 (1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1053, 114 S. Ct. 1613, 128 L. Ed. 2d 340 (1994).

Inspection of church’s financial records. - The court had subject matter jurisdiction of an action by a church trustee against a former pastor and the pastor’s administrative assistant to obtain information and documents on the financial operations of the church. Greer v. Davis, 244 Ga. App. 317, 534 S.E.2d 853 (2000). Order of the court requiring a former pastor and the pastor’s administrative assistant to provide a complete financial accounting and return church property in their possession was not inconsistent with the church’s religious freedom to determine its own governmental rules and regulations. Greer v. Davis, 244 Ga. App. 317, 534 S.E.2d 853 (2000).

Trial court’s order that a church call for an annual meeting of its membership in accordance with the provisions of O.C.G.A. § 14-3-701 constituted an unconstitutional judicial interference in the government of the church. First Born Church of Living God, Inc. v. Hill, 267 Ga. 633, 481 S.E.2d 221 (1997). Construction with O.C.G.A. § 14-3-101. - Georgia Nonprofit Corporate Code, O.C.G.A. § 14-3-101 et seq., can be used to resolve certain controversies involving religious institutions, under O.C.G.A. §§ 14-3-180 and 14-5-40 et seq. Waverly Hall Baptist Church, Inc. v. Branham, 276 Ga. App. 818, 625 S.E.2d 23 (2005).

ARTICLE 2 INCORPORATION

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1993–2005 · leading case: Kim v. Lim, 563 S.E.2d 485 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kim v. Lim, 563 S.E.2d 485 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “But we limit our inspection of these records here to a determination of whether the church government is congregational or hierarchical in character. [4] As noted in First Born, the Georgia Nonprofit Corporations Code provides that if any of its provisions is inconsistent with…”

Crocker v. Stevens, 435 S.E.2d 690 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 14-3-180. Contrary to the defendants’ contention, it appears that the trial court ensured that First Amendment values were not jeopardized.”

First Born Church of Living God, Inc. v. Hill, 481 S.E.2d 221 (Ga. 1997). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 14-3-180. Accordingly, the issue to be determined is whether the frequency with which the Church’s membership meets is a matter of religious doctrine having constitutional precedence over the inconsistent statutory provisions of OCGA § 14-3-701 (a).”

Waverly Hall Baptist Church, Inc. v. Branham, 625 S.E.2d 23 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “17 See OCGA §§ 14-3-180; 14-5-40 et seq.; Kim v.”

Greer v. Davis, 534 S.E.2d 853 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 14-3-180. As Davis points out, the evidence at trial showed that there was no religious doctrine of the Church that was inconsistent with these statutes.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.