Find Legal Information

This appeal involves a dispute over control of the Bethlehem Healing Temple Church inChicago and its non-profit corporation, Bethlehem Healing Temple Church, Inc. (hereinafterBethlehem and Bethlehem, Inc.). Because we find that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enterits orders of September 7 and September 13, we vacate those orders.

The record on appeal establishes the following facts. At the time the litigation began,Bishop A.C. Richards served as Bethlehem's pastor. In June 2001, several church members fileda complaint against Richards for an "emergency temporary injunction," claiming that Richards"failed and refused to account to the membership" for offerings and other funds contributed toBethlehem and "resisted the legitimate efforts of the [church members] to institute policies offiscal responsibility" and to determine Richards' successor as pastor. The members sought aninjunction against Richards ordering him, inter alia, to turn over bank records in whichBethlehem funds were deposited and to provide an accounting of all funds contributed toBethlehem by the membership and other sources. The trial court froze Bethlehem, Inc.'s bankaccounts and limited the distributions from those accounts.

Richards moved for involuntary dismissal of the complaint pursuant to sections 2-619(a)(1) and (a)(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(1), (a)(9) (West2000)), contending that the members were actually deacons and trustees of Bethlehem, not boardmembers, and that they therefore lacked standing. In addition, Richards argued that he and theboard were properly in control of Bethlehem, Inc., and its assets and that the court lackedjurisdiction over a religious dispute such as who should be Bethlehem's pastor. In amemorandum attached to Richards' motion, he stated that Bethlehem's current board was electedat an annual meeting on July 11, 2000.

An amended complaint was filed by Clarence Brownlow, a deacon of Bethlehem, ChesterHudson, a district elder, Eugene Price, a church elder, and Loncie McCray, a minister of thechurch (to whom we refer collectively as plaintiffs) against Richards, Marcenia J. Richards, LelaWalker, Marie Oliver, Michael Morris and A.C. Richards, Jr. (defendants). Plaintiffs contendedthat no church members received notice of the July 11 meeting and that the constitution andbylaws passed at that meeting were invalid because they violated Bethlehem, Inc.'s articles ofincorporation. Plaintiffs requested that an annual meeting be held on July 11, 2001, to elect theboard of directors of Bethlehem, Inc., and that Richards or defendants give an accounting offunds received and disbursed through Bethlehem, Inc., for the past 10 years. On June 22, the trialcourt entered an agreed order postponing the 2001 annual meeting and ordering that all fundsreceived, other than church service collections, be recorded in writing and placed in a separatebank account, to be withdrawn only with the approval of counsel or by court order.

On July 2, defendants moved for dismissal under section 2-619, asserting that the trialcourt lacked jurisdiction to resolve a religious dispute, that defendants were properly in control ofBethlehem, Inc., and that plaintiffs lacked standing. Defendants also argued that plaintiffs' claimwas barred by the doctrine of laches because Bethlehem, Inc., had functioned without corporatemembers for more than 20 years and plaintiffs had never objected before to the church's systemof governance. On July 26, after hearing argument, the trial court entered an order grantingdefendants' section 2-619 motion "in all respects" and dismissing plaintiffs' action with prejudice. On August 24, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from that judgment.

On August 31, defendants brought a motion to compel plaintiffs "to account for andreturn church property," stating that although the June 22 agreed order was effectively vacatedupon the dismissal of plaintiffs' action, plaintiffs had not yet relinquished Bethlehem's assets. According to the motion, altercations occurred during August 12 and August 26 church servicesin which plaintiffs threatened Marcenia J. Richards, forced Oliver from the pulpit and tookcontrol of the service.⁽¹⁾ Defendants asked the court to compel plaintiffs to provide a fullaccounting and return all church assets, property and records in their possession.

On September 6, plaintiffs responded to the motion, claiming that "circumstances [atBethlehem] have changed dramatically since the entry of the dismissal order" and that the LivingWitnesses of the Apostolic Faith, Inc., (LWAF) had "terminated" Richards from the office ofPresiding Bishop.⁽²⁾

Moreover, plaintiffs contended, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to heardefendants' emergency motion because plaintiffs had filed a notice of appeal regarding thedismissal of their amended complaint, thus vesting jurisdiction in this court.

On September 7, the trial court heard argument regarding defendants' August 31 motion,after which the court entered an order appointing a receiver "with immediate control over allchurch funds and to perform a full accounting and pay all church obligations and bills," subject tofurther conditions set out in the order. The trial court also froze all accounts in Bethlehem'sname and "any and all accounts containing funds raised on church premises or otherwise underits names or auspices" and ordered all parties to "provide a full and complete accounting of allchurch funds, including those raised or obtained under church auspices or in its name to the[r]eceiver."

In addition, the trial court allowed LWAF, whose counsel at the hearing presented apetition to intervene in the case, to intervene "for the limited purpose of resolving ownership ofchurch funds, as defined, herein ***" and stated that "LWAF [] is subject to this [o]rder in itsentirety." The court also held defendants' motion to compel was "entered and continuedgenerally" and set the matter for status on September 13 "at which time the court will determinewhether the receiver's payment of church obligations will include church payroll and when andwhere the accountings shall be delivered to the receiver."

On September 10, defendants filed a motion asking the court to reconsider itsappointment of a receiver, arguing that such action was not sought in defendants' motion tocompel or any other motion before the court and was beyond the court's jurisdiction. Defendantsalso asserted that the court improperly allowed LWAF to intervene after the court had entered afinal judgment dismissing the case. Defendants asked the court to vacate its September 7 orderin its entirety.

On September 13, the trial court denied defendants' motion to stay the September 7 order,took under advisement defendants' motion to reconsider the September 7 order, confirmed theappointment of a receiver, and continued defendants' motion to compel the return of assets. Defendants timely filed this interlocutory appeal from the September 7 and September 13 orders.

In this appeal, defendants contend that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter theSeptember 7 and September 13 orders after dismissing the suit on July 26 and after plaintiffsfiled a notice of appeal. Defendants also argue that the trial court failed to follow properprocedures for the appointment of a receiver and erred in permitting LWAF's intervention afterfinal judgment had been entered.

In order to be appealable, an order must be final and must terminate the litigation betweenthe parties, unless the Supreme Court Rules provide another avenue of appeal. Daley v. LicenseAppeal Commission of City of Chicago, 311 Ill. App. 3d 194, 200, 724 N.E.2d 214, 219 (1999). Here, the dismissal of plaintiffs' amended complaint pursuant to section 2-619 was a final orderterminating the litigation, and plaintiffs' appeal of that dismissal is in the briefing stage beforeanother division of this court as case No. 1-01-3164.

Our jurisdiction to hear the instant appeal is based upon Supreme Court Rules 307(a)(1),(a)(2), (a)(3) and (a)(5) (188 Ill. 2d Rs. 307(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3) and (a)(5)), which allow appealsfrom certain interlocutory orders involving injunctions and receivers. The filing of a notice ofappeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction to enter further orders of substance in a cause andtransfers jurisdiction to the appellate court instanter. R.W. Dunteman Co. v. C/G Enterprises,Inc., 181 Ill. 2d 153, 162, 692 N.E.2d 306, 312 (1998). Thereafter, the trial court cannot enter anorder that would modify the judgment or its scope, though the court retains jurisdiction todetermine matters collateral or incidental to the judgment, such as applications for depositioncosts. See Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Whitehall Convalescent and Nursing Home, Inc., 321Ill. App. 3d 879, 887, 748 N.E.2d 674, 681 (2001); Physicians Insurance Exchange v. Jennings,316 Ill. App. 3d 443, 453, 736 N.E.2d 179, 187 (2000). See also John G. Phillips & Associatesv. Brown, 197 Ill. 2d 337, 340, 757 N.E.2d 875, 877 (2001).

Following plaintiffs' August 24 notice of appeal, defendants revived the case in the trialcourt through their August 31 motion seeking further relief in retaining Bethlehem's assets. Inresponse, the trial court froze Bethlehem's accounts, appointed a receiver to perform anaccounting of church funds and allowed LWAF to intervene in the case. We recognize that theactions of the trial court that led to this appeal purportedly were taken in response to defendants'request for immediate relief. However, in previously granting defendants' section 2-619 motionto dismiss plaintiffs' complaint, the trial court essentially held that plaintiffs could prove no set offacts that would support a cause of action against defendants. See Landau, Omahana & KopkaLtd. v. Franciscan Sisters Health Care Corp., 323 Ill. App. 3d 487, 492, 752 N.E.2d 570, 573(2001). The trial court's subsequent actions improperly reopened the question of control overBethlehem's funds and its church services.

Because the September 7, 2001, and September 13, 2001, orders were not collateral orincidental to the judgment but instead revisited the central issue of Bethlehem's rightfulgovernance, which already had been decided and appealed to this court, the trial court lackedjurisdiction to enter those orders. Accordingly, we vacate those orders.

Orders vacated.

BUCKLEY and O'BRIEN, JJ., concur.

1. Richards died on August 9 and was succeeded as pastor by his daughter, Marcenia J.Richards.

2. According to the record, the pastor of each LWAF-affiliated church is appointed andremoved by the Presiding Bishop, not by the members of the local congregation.