How can people resolve church property disputes in Florida without years of costly court battles? The collaborative law process for religious disputes offers a faith-friendly alternative.
Issues that arose in First United Methodist Church of Hobe Sound, Florida, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the Florida Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, Inc., Case No. 1D2023-1048 (Fla. 1st DCA April 8, 2026) illustrate such opportunities for collaborative solutions to church property disputes.
Landmark Florida Court Decision on Church Disaffiliation and Property
On April 8, 2026, the Florida First District Court of Appeal released a ruling that affects many local churches. Seventy-one United Methodist churches in Florida wanted to leave the larger denomination. They hoped to keep their buildings, land, and other property without paying extra fees. These churches felt the national church had moved away from its traditional beliefs. The trial judge dismissed the case and appeals court affirmed the dismissal because Florida law requires deference to church hierarchy for such religious disputes.
Factual Background
The schism that brought the case to the Florida court emerged from the General Conference of 2019 of the United Methodist Church. During the General Conference, delegates affirmed Paragraph 2702, known as the “Book of Discipline” or “Traditional Plan,” by a close vote: 438 to 384.
Paragraph 2702 of the Book of Discipline subjects a bishop or clergy member to removal from office for engaging in “practices declared by The United Methodist Church to be incompatible with Christian teachings, including but not limited to: being a self-avowed practicing homosexual; or conducting ceremonies which celebrate homosexual unions; or performing same-sex wedding ceremonies.”
Structure of the United Methodist Church
Every local church in the United Methodist Church (UMC) network belongs to a larger network of churches that forms the whole UMC. Under the UMC’s hierarchy, a local church is grouped together with other churches in a geographic area, like Florida, as part of a district. Multiple districts form one of fifteen annual conferences. The annual conferences form one of five jurisdictional conferences. These jurisdictional conferences are then governed by the church law established by the General Conference.
The General Conference is the UMC’s top lawmaking assembly. It has sole authority to speak on behalf of the church.
UMC’s Disaffiliation Rules and the 2019 General Conference
Under Paragraph 2553 of a the Book of Discipline, which the delegates enacted during the 2019 General Conference, two-thirds of a local United Methodist Church’s congregation could vote to disaffiliate from the United Methodist Church (UMC). But, to retain their church property, the church had to pay off any loans from the UMC, the fees to transfer title to the real property, two years of apportionments, and a portion of future pension liabilities plus any arrearages.
Local churches who might have been unable to afford the financial costs of disaffiliation under Paragraph 2553, faced a Hobson’s Choice. They could choose to remain in the religious organization they believed had abandoned its central tenets. Or they could give up the land where their relatives were buried, the sanctuary where their children were baptized, and the place in their community where important moments in their lives were marked.
The churches presented their issues to the UMC’s highest internal judicial body—the Judicial Council. According to the Judicial Council, the 2019 addition provided the exclusive pathway for conscience-based disaffiliation and required payments that the Annual Conference set.
The Local Churches Sue
In July 2022, seventy-one local United Methodist churches sued multiple defendants in Bradford County, Florida. They sought to disaffiliate from the UMC, but to retain and quiet title to the real property on which the churches were built.
The Defendants were the Board of Trustees of the Florida Annual Conference of the UMC, cabinet officers of the Florida Conference of the UMC, and the UMC’s Bishop.
Plaintiffs Claimed the Church Violated Fundamental Doctrine
The plaintiff churches alleged the defendants refused ”to abide by and enforce the doctrinal positions of the Book of Discipline explicitly rejecting the doctrinal positions it encourages and allows.” Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged the defendants allowed or encouraged bishops and clergy to violate church doctrine by officiating same-sex weddings or being openly gay. Because of this, the plaintiffs wished to leave the UMC and reaffiliate with the Global Methodist Church.
For this church property dispute, the defendants argued, Florida’s adoption of the hierarchical deference approach barred the court from second-guessing an internal ecclesiastical ruling. The defendants contended the plaintiffs were stuck with the ecclesiastic framework for resolving disaffiliation and this religious property dispute. They further argued the UMC’s decision to enforce the 2019 rules for disaffiliation applied.
Public Hearing and Trial Judge’s Ruling
The week of Christmas 2022, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to quiet title to the property they sought to retain, unencumbered by the UMC’s disaffiliation rules. Six hundred people showed up in person and more appeared by Zoom videoconference to witness a February 21, 2023 two-hour public hearing before the Circuit Judge George M. Wright.
Agreeing with the defendants, on April 17, 2023, the trial court dismissed the case. Read the Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint, Motion for Sanctions, and Motion to Stay Discovery. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal.
Judge Wright found that Florida’s adoption of the “hierarchical deference” approach barred second-guessing an internal ecclesiastical ruling over this church property dispute. Therefore, the appellate court declined the plaintiffs’ invitation to adopt a different approach known as the “neutral principles” approach, which most states follow.
The Certified Question Sent to the Florida Supreme Court
After affirming the trial court’s April 2023 decision to dismiss the amended complaint, the First District Court of Appeal certified to the Florida Supreme Court the question of great public importance:
WHEN ASKED TO ADJUDICATE STATE-LAW CLAIMS TO RESOLVE INTRA-CHURCH PROPERTY DISPUTES INVOLVING HIERARCHICAL CHURCHES, ARE FLORIDA COURTS STILL GOVERNED BY THE HIERARCHICAL DEFERENCE APPROACH OR MAY SUCH DISPUTES BE RESOLVED UNDER THE NEUTRAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW APPROACH?
Hierarchical Deference vs. Neutral Principles in Church Property Disputes Florida
The Two Main Court Approaches Explained
As discussed in the United Methodist disaffiliation case, courts have two main ways to handle fights over church property. The first is called hierarchical deference, or ecclesiastical abstention. The second is called neutral principles of law.
Hierarchical Deference: The Highest Church Court’s Ruling is Final
Hierarchical deference means, if, as the UMC does, a church has layers of authority — such as local churches under regional conferences under a national body — civil courts must accept the church’s highest ruling in a dispute over church property as final. This idea started in an 1872 U.S. Supreme Court case. The reason? People who join a hierarchical church agree to follow its rules. Letting civil judges step in would mix government with religion and abridge religious freedom. Florida has followed this approach for decades.
Neutral Principles: Look at Deeds, Trusts, and State Law to Resolve Property Disputes
The second approach applies “neutral principles of law.” Here, judges look only at plain documents like deeds, trust papers, and state laws. Civil court judges treat property disputes involving churches like any other property dispute. Whose theology is “right” is irrelevant to resolving the property claims.
The U.S. Supreme Court said in 1979 states may allow this method. Many states adopted the neutral principles approach because it keeps courts neutral.
As discussed above, because current Florida law still requires deference to the church hierarchy, the appeals court held the trial judge was right to dismiss the UMC complaint.
What the 2026 Ruling Means for Local Churches
If your Florida church belongs to a hierarchical group such as the United Methodist Church, Catholic Church, or certain Presbyterian or Episcopal bodies, the April 8, 2026 decision makes it harder to resolve disputes over church property in Florida state courts. Until, if ever, Florida law changes, rules of a parent denomination will likely control.
That reality can feel painful. Families of church members may have worshiped, baptized kids, married, and buried loved ones in the same building for generations.
The good news is that court is not the only path. There may be a more hopeful option for resolving disaffiliation issues, church property disputes, and other intra-church conflicts.
Instead of fighting in court, could the collaborative law process have brought everyone together for a private, creative solution to the intra-church property dispute?
The Collaborative Law Process: A Peaceful Alternative for Resolving Religious Disputes
Collaborative law lets everyone work together instead of fighting in court. All sides meet with trained helpers to reach a voluntary agreement that respects everyone’s needs. This collaborative law process for resolving religious disputes keeps the focus on ministry and relationships instead of winning.
Who Gets a Seat at the Table
The principal clients would be authorized elected trustees or lay leaders from the local church. They would speak for the congregation that uses and loves the property. Authorized leaders from the regional conference and national church would also sit at the table. This setup would honor the larger church connectional structure while giving the local group a real voice.
Building Your Collaborative Team for Church Conflicts
Your collaborative team would include each participant’s collaborative lawyers. These lawyers are trained in respectful negotiation.
A neutral facilitator would guide the meetings and negotiations, so everyone stays calm and focused.
A neutral collaborative financial expert would run fair numbers on property values and financial matters.
Allied professionals with faith expertise — such as church policy consultants or neutral theologians — would be valuable to explain rules without taking sides.
Creative Solutions You Can Create Together
Court authority is limited. And, as the UMC case showed, the court must have jurisdiction to decide the disputed issues. The trial judge in the United Methodist case decided applying the hierarchical deference approach meant it had no jurisdiction over the substantive issues the plaintiff churches invited the court to decide.
In contrast, Collaborative teams can design many more solutions. Disaffiliating churches might agree on a buyout paid over several years with credits for past giving. Parties could explore sharing the building during a transition time. Or local and higher church organizations could create a joint fund that supports mission work both groups value. Some teams could explore real property instruments or amending trust terms to honor original donors while freeing the property under specified, clear conditions.
Benefits of Collaborative Law
For churches and families caught in religious disputes, whether it is a disaffiliation battle over who keeps the sanctuary and burial grounds, a painful split over a pastor’s departure, or a custody fight about how children will be raised in the faith, the collaborative law process can deliver benefits to the participants.
In the Collaborative Process, negotiations stay private. There are no public court hearings attended by hundreds (as attended the UMC hearing) or detailed court filings. There are no depositions or subpoenas. No trial transcripts broadcast to the world your deepest doctrinal disagreements or family faith struggles.
Creative Solutions Judges Cannot Impose
Instead of a judge deciding who “wins” the church building or imposing a parenting plan on your family, in the collaborative law process, you create solutions that fit your shared values.
So, for example, in a quiet title property case like the United Methodist Church case, the team might design a phased transition for disaffiliation less onerous financially than UMC Discipline would impose. That would let the departing congregation continue using the sanctuary for a set time while the Annual Conference would get a fair, gradual payment. No civil court could order that without the key parties’ agreement.
Likewise, in family interfaith disputes, parents may create a parenting schedule and a parental responsibility structure that honor differing religious traditions.
Timetable for Moving On
In the UMC case, the First DCA’s decision affirming dismissal came out nearly 4 years after the 71 churches first sued the Trustees of the Florida Annual Conference, with the certified question to the Florida Supreme Court yet to be answered.
In contrast, the collaborative process usually finishes in months instead of years. According to the Florida Academy of Collaborative Professionals, which collected data from collaborative family law professionals, 9 of 10 collaborative matters concluded in 12 months or less. Statistics on Collaborative Divorce in Florida, Florida Academy of Collaborative Professionals, Cordover, Adam B. And Heller, Randy J., Family Law Commentator (October 2025).
Every dispute is unique. But if your collaborative matter followed a similar timetable, your congregation could stop spending money and energy on lawyers and resume focusing on the ministry.
Lasting Agreements – Ongoing Relationships
Moreover, because the people who love the church and the families involved in it, through their representatives, would build the collaborative agreement themselves, they would be more likely to honor it for years to come, without costly enforcement proceedings or appeals.
The Collaborative Process is ideal for preserving ongoing relationships. Litigation can make the bitter more so. By comparison, Collaborative participants may watch out for poisonous, troubling “roots of bitterness.” Hebrews 12:15, Colossians 3:12-13. The Collaborative Process encourages listening and managing anger. James 1:19-20. By using the Collaborative Process, people can “refrain from anger” and “abandon wrath.” Psalm 37:8. They can dispel “bitterness, rage, and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice,” find forgiveness, and be forgiving. Ephesians 4:31-32.
The Downsides of Collaborative
The collaborative law process is not magic. Churches and families in religious disputes need to face its limitations honestly.
The Collaborative Process demands good faith from everyone at the table. If a participant refuses to cooperate, the process can terminate.
Thus, if the Annual Conference were to refuse to negotiate in a UMC disaffiliation case, or one parent in a faith-based custody dispute were to decide not to budge from a position or were to withhold information, the process could terminate. If that were to happen, after investing months, energy, and professional fees, the parties could still end up in hierarchical church dispute resolution or in court.
Upfront Costs
Getting together the right team for the issues may be a challenge. A full collaborative team costs more at the start than simply filing a lawsuit. An interdisciplinary team (lawyers, neutral facilitator, financial expert, and faith consultant) would mean higher upfront costs than simply filing a lawsuit. That upfront outlay can feel heavy for a small local church already stretched thin.
Buyer’s Remorse
If the parties reach an agreement and a party later feels the agreement is no longer acceptable, the parties get no automatic appeal. Success depends on the participants putting ministry and relationships first.
If one side later feels the final agreement is unfair, there is no automatic right to appeal. That can worry a congregation afraid it gave up too much of its historic sanctuary in a bad bargain.
Finally, success depends heavily on both sides being willing to put ministry, relationships, and reconciliation ahead of “winning.” In deeply divided hierarchical churches or high-conflict family faith matters, such willingness isn’t always present. Some participants may still prefer the certainty (and finality) of a ruling by the church’s court or by a civil court with jurisdiction, even if the traditional alternative means a longer, more public fight.
Beyond Property Fights: Collaborative Law for Broader Church and Family Issues
Collaborative tools can work well for many church disagreements, not for just religious property disputes. These issues often touch families directly. Fighting in court to resolve them can cause deep hurt.
Common Church Conflicts That Touch Families
Pastor Changes and Family Stress
When a pastor retires or leaves suddenly, the pastor and congregation members may worry about severance, housing, and transition to a new leader. Collaborative talks can create a smooth plan that respects the pastor’s family, the congregation’s needs, and the guidelines of the denomination.
Facility Use for Life Events
Weddings, funerals, and baptisms are key family moments. When one family feels shut out or another feels rules have changed, emotions can run high. In collaborative sessions, participants and their collaborative team can help write clear, kind policies everyone finds acceptable.
When Families Feel Left Out
Disagreements over children’s ministry, youth programs, or church-school choices can leave parents feeling their core values are under attack. Bringing parents, clergy, and leaders together with neutral experts leads to plans that protect kids and honor church teachings.
Collaborative Law in Divorce, Custody, and Parenting Decisions Involving Faith
Divorce, custody, and parenting decisions become even harder when faith is involved. Collaborative law keeps the focus on the children and shared values instead of winning in court.
Real-Life Examples : Florida Parental Responsibility Cases – Religion
In Florida, a judge can’t restrict parent’s religious beliefs, even if unconventional. But a judge may consider religiously motivated acts that affect a child’s welfare can’t be ignored. In Koch v. Koch, 207 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016), a dad’s actions towards his kids, threats of damnation, and demonization of their mom caused kids severe distress. His use of Biblical verses to justify severe punishment of the kids was abusive. There was no violation of his rights by restricting discussion of “religious matters” during dad’s time with kids.
A trial judge abused discretion by granting a mom ultimate authority over children’s religious upbringing. Citing Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 US 205 (1972), the First District found no clear affirmative showing by mom that dad’s religious activities would harm the child. It was wrong to restrict the noncustodial parent’s right to expose the child to religious beliefs. There was no evidence exposing his children to his religious beliefs or activities as a Jehovah’s Witness harmed them. Pierson v. Pierson, 143 So. 3d 1201 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
In Lane v. Lane, 254 So. 3d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018), a trial judge couldn’t preclude a parent from practicing religion or influencing the religious training of a child inconsistent with that of the child’s other parent. But a mom’s objection to private school wasn’t over its religious affiliation or in conflict with her religious beliefs. There was no violation of shared parental responsibility for dad to take son for academic testing (an admission assessment test) without mom’s knowledge or consent.
Parenting Decisions on Church School or Youth Programs
When parents disagree on sending kids to a church-affiliated school or joining certain youth activities, the Collaborative Process can bring in education experts and faith consultants. Read more about including Allied Professionals on your Collaborative team. They may help map out decision-making rules that put the child’s well-being first.
In another cases, parents who belong to the same church may split over how strictly to follow certain teachings. They have used collaborative teams to work through these issues. One parent might want the children in a more traditional youth group while the other prefers a modern program. With a neutral facilitator and faith expert, they may agree on a schedule that lets the children experience both approaches without confusion or harm.
Moving from Division to Dignity: The Collaborative Process to Resolve Religious Disputes
Church fights over property, leadership, or family matters are seldom just about rules. People, memories, and the places where faith shapes daily life may motivate such fights. Intense emotions may prolong the fighting.
The United Methodist decision reflects Florida law still defers to letting hierarchical churches govern themselves.
But being “stuck” with the ecclesiastic dispute resolution framework or awaiting the time, if ever, the Florida Supreme Court decides to join the majority of states and follow the neutral principles approach aren’t your only choices.
The collaborative law process gives churches and families a way to demonstrate and model the grace and reconciliation many religious institutions teach. Hard moments can become chances for dignity and creativity, even when paths diverge.
If your church faces disaffiliation or other intra-church conflict, or your family or you and your child’s other parent get stuck on resolving disputes about the child’s religious upbringing, a collaboratively trained attorney or facilitator may assist.
Choosing the Collaborative Process may be one of the most hopeful steps your religious institution – and your family – can take.
Read more: Church Property Disputes: Collaborative Law Opportunities