Opinion
Aug. 20, 1974.
Editorial Note:
This case has been marked 'not for publication' by the court.
Johnson, Doty, Johnson & Summers, Bruce R. Johnson, Boulder, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Sonheim & Helm, Arvada, for defendant-appellee.
ENOCH, Judge.
This is a companion case to No. 73--191, United pentecostal Church v. Morrison, 527 P.2d 1169, decided by this court today. A reading of that opinion will provide a background of the facts for this opinion.
After the trial court denied injunctive relief in the former case, the controversy continued between the pastor and certain members of the church. In the present case, a faction of the church filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment for a determination that defendant Milam's employment as pastor had been terminated. The complaint alleged, Inter alia, that certain plaintiffs are the trustees and board members of the church, and that all of the plaintiffs are members of the church. Plaintiffs further alleged that defendant Milam was dismissed as the pastor 'at a regular meeting of the congregation held on Thursday, April 19, 1973,' that defendant was so notified and has in effect ignored such action. Defendant-appellee J. C. Milam, pastor of the church, filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted. Plaintiffs appeal from that judgment of dismissal. We affirm.
The trial court concluded that it could not resolve the question of whether plaintiffs were in fact members of the church or whether certain plaintiffs were officers of the church. In addition, the court held that its decision in the former case (73--191) was res judicata on the issues raised in the present action, that plaintiffs' present claim should have been raised as a counterclaim in the former action, and finally that the court had no jurisdiction to determine the issues presented.
We agree with the judgment of dismissal but not for the reasons stated. The court prematurely raised an issue as to whether plaintiffs were in fact members or officers of the church. In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the trial court must accept all allegations of the complaint as true. Cook v. Denver, 128 Colo. 578, 265 P.2d 700. Plaintiffs' allegations that they were members and officers were sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss on this ground.
Further, the trial court's decision in the former case is not res judicata on the issues raised by the complaint in this action. In the present complaint plaintiffs allege that on April 18, 1973, a meeting was held at which action was taken to discharge the pastor. The meeting occurred after judgment was entered in the former case and gives rise to a new set of facts and issues to be determined by the court. Likewise, since the present claim is based on actions taken by the members subsequent to the entry of judgment in the former action, it could not be dismissed on the ground that it should have been a counterclaim in the former action.
However, the complaint was defective for another reason which was not considered by the trial court. As stated in our opinion in No. 73--191, a church group or similar society must exhaust all remedies available to it within the organization before applying to the courts for relief. Knauss v. Seventh-Day Adventists Ass'n, 117 Colo. 540, 190 P.2d 590. In Horst v. Traudt, 43 Colo. 445, 96 P. 259, a case in which the members of a congregation sought to enjoin the minister from commencing his duties, the court held that plaintiffs must allege that they have exhausted all means within the church to obtain redress of their grievances.
In the case at hand the complaint is silent as to whether plaintiffs have exhausted their ecclesiastical remedies before instituting this court action. Therefore, the complaint was defective, and it was not error for the court to have entered a judgment of dismissal.
Judgment affirmed.
RULAND and KELLY, JJ., concur.