CASES OF INTEREST

Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA, Archbishop Antony et. als. v. Luchejko et. als.
This suit was initiated in May of 1999 by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of United States of America [hereinafter referred to as UOC-USA], Archbishop Antony, and a small minority group of former parishioners of the Holy Ascension Parish of Passaic NJ, Inc. now located in Clifton, NJ [hereinafter referred to as Holy Ascension Parish]. The Defendants are the Holy Ascension Parish, the Parish Board and individual Parish Board members. Thereafter, Metropolitan Constantine was interpleaded as a third party defendant.

The dispute began after the Defendants questioned the propriety of certain actions in December of 1994 taken by Plaintiff Archbishop Antony and other church corporation office holders, especially the signing of the “Points of Agreement” which the Defendants show constituted an unlawful and unauthorized attempt to merge the UOC-USA with a totally separate and unrelated (even sometimes inimical) church, the Church of Constantinople [sometimes referred to herein as the Ecumenical Patriarchate or Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople]. By these actions, the Plaintiff Archbishop Antony and the other hierarchs left and abandoned the UOC-USA and became clerics in a totally distinct and separate religious institution thereby forfeiting all corporate, spiritual or any other authority over member parishes of the UOC-USA.

In response, the Plaintiff, Archbishop Antony allegedly “suspended” the parish and directed the then parish pastor, Rev. Mironko, not to celebrate liturgy; the Archbishop refused to recognize any actions of the lawfully elected Parish Board.  The Parish Board, in turn, hired another Ukrainian Orthodox priest which action the Defendants state was authorized by the Holy Ascension Parish’s organic documents and by the UOC-USA’s long standing customs and practices. Thereafter, this litigation began.

The complaint, as advanced by all the plaintiffs, seeks to assert control over the internal management, operations, property and assets of Holy Ascension Parish. The Defendants responded asserting that such control over all parish assets is vested solely in the parish itself and that the parish has by custom and its own organic documents the right to secede from the UOC-USA. The Defendants also asserted claims against the bishops sounding in common-law tort, fraud, misrepresentation, and deceit.

During the course of the litigation, the claims and defenses of all of the clerical Plaintiffs and of a substantial majority of the individual Plaintiffs were dismissed with prejudice which dismissals were never appealed. Seven individual Plaintiffs were reinstated as plaintiffs in August 6, 2001 who the Trial Court on March 14, 2003 concluded had legal standing to pursue the claims alleged in the complaint.

The Chancery Division of Somerset County had also granted Final Judgment on these claims in favor of the plaintiffs who still remain in this action, ruling essentially that the claims of the Plaintiffs are justified under the Constitution of the UOC-USA and because the defendant parish is a part of a “hierarchical” church organization which is centrally controlled in all important respects. The Judgment also granted the Plaintiffs’ request that individuals approved by the Archbishop be appointed to the parish board thus giving control of the property and assets of the parish to the UOC-USA hierarchy. At the same time, the Chancery Division entered judgment against Defendants in this action on their counterclaim against the senior bishops of the UOC-USA on the basis that a secular court had no jurisdiction to entertain the Defendants’ claims against these persons sounding in common law tort, fraud, misrepresentation, and deceit.  The Defendants appealed the trial court decision to the NJ Superior Court - Appellate Division.

On November 27, 2004, the Appellate Division reversed the September 3, 2003, Final Judgment of the Chancery Division of Somerset County which approved the Archbishop's appointment of the Parish Board (and thus giving control of the property back to the Parish) and further concluded that the court lacked jurisdiction over the remainder of the issues in the case since they involved in the court's view religious questions.  The Plaintiffs appealed this reversal  to the NJ Supreme Court and the Defendants Cross-appealed the other juridictional conclusions of the court.  Tthe Supreme Court decided not to grant certifacation in March of 2005.

The defendants are respresented by Myroslaw Smorosky.
Prof. E.R. Lanier , Georgia State law School is counsel pro hac vice.

For additonal information, please visit  The Website SAVE OUR UOC-USA