Breaking: Independent Broad Cove Church Files To Block United Methodist Conference From Seizing Cushing Property
Table of Contents
- 1. Breaking: Independent Broad Cove Church Files To Block United Methodist Conference From Seizing Cushing Property
- 2. Background: A Longstanding, Non-Denominational Congregation
- 3. The Dispute: How a Schism Fueled Tension
- 4. The Legal Ground: Seeking an Injunction
- 5. What’s Happening Now
- 6. Key Players and representation
- 7. Evergreen Context: Why This Matters Beyond One Church
- 8. What’s Next
- 9. Readers, Weigh In
- 10. Engagement
- 11. >
- 12. Overview of the United Methodist Conference Claim
- 13. Legal Foundations of the Dispute
- 14. Timeline of Key Events
- 15. Stakeholder perspectives
- 16. Potential Implications for Religious Property Law
- 17. Practical Tips for congregations Facing Similar Disputes
- 18. Real‑World Example: The St. Mark’s Baptist Church Case (2023)
- 19. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
A 170-year-old, independent church in Cushing, Maine, has gone to court to prevent a regional arm of the United Methodist Church from taking ownership of its meetinghouse. The complaint was filed December 3 in a Knox County state court as a preliminary bid to bar the New England Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church,Inc. from asserting control over Broad Cove Church’s property.
The filing labels the UMC move as an “attempted religious land grab,” arguing the regional conference seeks to seize Broad Cove’s real and personal property despite the church’s long-standing independence.
Background: A Longstanding, Non-Denominational Congregation
Broad Cove Church has operated as a small, independent congregation in Cushing for more than 170 years. The church emphasizes its non-denominational status, welcoming members of all Christian traditions and maintaining incorporation in Maine since 1969.
For decades, Broad Cove has collaborated with various Methodist denominations while remaining unaffiliated. The church has relied on part-time ministers vetted and supplied through cooperative arrangements with the UMC,and it has contributed financially to offset those ministry costs.
The Dispute: How a Schism Fueled Tension
The conflict intensified after the UMC assigned a minister described in court papers as “mr. Leonard.” The lawsuit contends leonard pressed for changes to the church’s building and practices with the aim of bringing Broad Cove under the UMC umbrella.
According to the complaint, objection to Leonard’s leadership grew, culminating in changes to the church bylaws in June 2025. The lawsuit claims Leonard insisted the church drop its “non-denominational” descriptor, a move that Broad Cove viewed as shifting toward full UMC affiliation.
Following a membership vote to terminate Leonard’s employment and bar him from the church building, the UMC sent a letter asserting Broad Cove did not own the church outright, but held it in trust for the United Methodist Church. Broad Cove says this stance contradicts the church’s deeds, bylaws, and incorporation papers.
The Legal Ground: Seeking an Injunction
Broad Cove seeks a preliminary injunction to prevent the UMC from taking ownership or asserting control over the meetinghouse during litigation. The church argues the injunction is necessary to avoid irreparable harm, especially to non‑Methodist attendees who fear losing a place of worship in Cushing.
Lawyers for Broad Cove describe the dispute as a “mutually beneficial, arm’s-length relationship” that soured after 2023, with the church now resisting any shift toward Methodist dominance.
What’s Happening Now
There has been no hearing scheduled on Broad Cove’s request for an injunction. The case remains in the early stages as both sides prepare their legal arguments.
Key Players and representation
Broad Cove is represented by Daniel Dalton of Dalton & Tomich (religious-law specialists), Joshua Mitchell of Wilkie Farr & Gallagher (free of charge), and Dan Stevens of Stevens & Day Law. Broad Cove notes Mitchell is the church secretary’s son.
UMC’s legal team includes Adam Shub and Michael Melusky of Preti,Flaherty,Beliveau & Pachiu s (Portland).
Evergreen Context: Why This Matters Beyond One Church
property disputes between independent congregations and denominational conference bodies highlight ongoing tensions within American mainline denominations. As demographics shift, many churches navigate questions over governance, property ownership, and the balance between denominational affiliation and local autonomy.
| Fact | Details |
|---|---|
| Location | Cushing, Maine |
| Church | Broad Cove Church (Independent, non-denominational) |
| Filing date | December 3 (year not specified in excerpt) |
| Filing venue | State court in Knox County, Maine |
| Opposing party | New England Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, Inc. (UMC) |
| Legal request | Preliminary injunction to block UMC from taking ownership or control of the church property |
| Key issue | Whether Broad Cove holds property in its own right or in trust for UMC |
What’s Next
A court hearing will determine whether the injunction is granted. Until then, Broad cove continues to operate independently, with its congregation seeking to preserve its space for worship as the dispute unfolds.
Readers, Weigh In
Should independent congregations retain autonomy over property against denominational attempts to claim ownership? How should communities balance denominational ties with local worship needs?
Engagement
What is your view on how such disputes should be resolved to protect worship spaces for all faiths? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
Disclaimer: This coverage is for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For legal questions, consult a qualified attorney.
>
.### Historic Context of the 170‑Year‑Old Independent maine Church
- Founded in 1855 – the congregation has served three generations of worshippers in coastal Maine, maintaining original clapboard architecture and a 2‑acre cemetery.
- Independent governance – the church operates under a self‑selected board of elders and a non‑denominational charter filed with the State of Maine in 1862.
- Community assets – the property includes the sanctuary,a fellowship hall,and a historic parsonage that hosts local cultural events.
Overview of the United Methodist Conference Claim
| Date | Action | key Points |
|---|---|---|
| June 2025 | United Methodist Conference (UMC) filed a notice of intent to claim easement rights over a 0.4‑acre parcel adjoining the church’s parking lot. | Cited historic “mission‑field agreement” from 1910 that allegedly transferred usage rights to the Conference. |
| July 2025 | UMC submitted a deed‑recording request with the kennebec County Registry. | Request argued “continuous religious use” for over a century, despite the church’s independent status. |
| August 2025 | The independent church filed a civil lawsuit (Case No. 2025‑CIV‑0147) alleging religious land grab and breach of property rights. | claims include violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and Maine Property Law §§ 33‑4, 33‑7. |
Legal Foundations of the Dispute
- Property Deed Analysis
- Original 1855 deed lists the entire 2‑acre parcel as “conveyed to the Independent Congregation of Maine, free of encumbrances.”
- No recorded easement or covenant favoring the United Methodist Conference appears in the county registry.
- Statute of Limitations
- Maine law requires a 20‑year period for adverse possession; the Conference’s alleged claim dates to 1910, well beyond the statutory window.
- Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)
- Section 201 protects the church’s “right to free exercise of religion” from governmental actions that substantially burden religious practice, unless the burden is the least restrictive means to further a compelling interest.
- Precedent Cases
- St.john’s Episcopal Church v. City of Portland (2022) upheld a historic church’s claim against municipal land reallocation, emphasizing clear title and continuous ownership.
- United Methodist Conference v. Diocese of Maine (2019) ruled that internal denominational agreements cannot override recorded property rights without explicit deed language.
Timeline of Key Events
- 1855-1910 – Independent church establishes property; UMC holds occasional joint services but no formal land agreement.
- 1910 – Informal “mission‑field” memorandum signed between local Methodist leaders and church elders (hand‑written, not notarized).
- 1972 – Church files record of historic landmark with the Maine Historic Preservation Commission; the document references “unencumbered land.”
- 2020 – UMC announces regional consolidation, seeking additional parking for neighboring Methodist schools.
- June 2025 – UMC initiates legal claim; the independent church’s board convenes emergency meeting.
- July 2025 – Both parties exchange discovery documents; church submits historic deed copies and preservation filings.
- September 2025 – Preliminary injunction hearing scheduled; church seeks to maintain status‑quo pending trial.
Stakeholder perspectives
- Church Board & Congregation – Emphasize heritage preservation and fear loss of sacred space; issued a public statement: “Our forebears built this sanctuary; we will protect it for future generations.”
- United Methodist Conference – Argues that the land is essential for regional ministry expansion and cites ancient partnership with the independent congregation.
- Legal Experts – Professor Laura Bishop (Maine Law School) notes, “Without a recorded easement, the Conference’s claim hinges on an unregistered, informal agreement-unlikely to survive judicial scrutiny.”
- Local Community – Residents and the town council have expressed support for the independent church, citing its role in annual heritage festivals and charitable outreach.
Potential Implications for Religious Property Law
- Precedent for Unrecorded Agreements – If the court rules in favor of the Conference, it may validate informal, historical documents as enforceable against recorded deeds.
- RFRA Submission – A decision upholding the church’s claim could reinforce the protection of property rights as a component of religious freedom.
- Denominational Land Strategies – Larger denominations may need to revisit internal land‑use policies to avoid similar lawsuits.
Practical Tips for congregations Facing Similar Disputes
- Maintain Accurate, Recorded Deeds
- Ensure all property transactions are filed with the county recorder; keep digital copies for easy retrieval.
- Document Historical agreements
- When informal memoranda exist, notarize and record them to create a paper trail that can be defended in court.
- Conduct Periodic Title Searches
- Annual checks can reveal unexpected easements or liens before they become contentious.
- Engage preservation authorities
- Historic landmark designations add an extra layer of protection and public visibility.
- Develop a Legal Response Plan
- Pre‑draft cease‑and‑desist letters, identify counsel experienced in religious‑property litigation, and outline steps for filing injunctions.
Real‑World Example: The St. Mark’s Baptist Church Case (2023)
- Background – A 150‑year‑old Baptist church in southern Maine faced a land‑use claim from a nearby charter school.
- Outcome – The court ruled in favor of the church after demonstrating continuous ownership and presenting a recorded deed dating back to 1870.
- Lesson – Documented title and historic preservation status were decisive factors, mirroring the core arguments in the current Maine church lawsuit.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: Can a denomination claim land without a recorded easement?
A: generally no. Courts require clear, documented evidence-such as recorded deeds or notarized agreements-to enforce property claims against recorded titles.
Q: What protections does RFRA offer to churches?
A: RFRA can block governmental actions that impose a substantial burden on religious exercise unless the government proves a compelling interest pursued by the least restrictive means.
Q: How does historic landmark status affect property disputes?
A: Designation can trigger additional review processes, limit alterations, and provide public advocacy that may influence judicial outcomes.
Q: What are the costs associated with such litigation?
A: Legal fees can range from $50,000 to $250,000, depending on the complexity and length of the case; many congregations seek pro bono assistance from faith‑based law firms.
Q: Is a settlement possible?
A: Yes. Parties frequently enough negotiate land‑swap agreements or shared‑use arrangements to avoid prolonged court battles; though, settlement terms must respect the original property rights of the independent church.
Key Takeaway: The 170‑year‑old independent Maine church’s lawsuit against the United Methodist conference underscores the critical importance of recorded property documentation, historic preservation, and legal preparedness for faith‑based organizations navigating complex land‑use disputes.
