Heated hearing on repeal of Methodist trust clause draws hundreds of congregants

Supporters of House Bill 11‑82, which would repeal the Maryland statute implementing the United Methodist Church trust clause, gave heartfelt testimony on Feb. 25 asking the General Assembly to let congregations keep property they say they built and maintained for generations.

Delegate Mark Fisher, the bill sponsor, said the statutory provision gives a single denomination special protection in state law that can be applied to deny local congregations the ability to disaffiliate while retaining property they funded. Witnesses from small, often rural congregations described fundraising traditions—bake sales, dinners and "making the biscuits"—and said local members paid mortgages, maintained cemeteries and paid pastors. Several speakers said conference leadership had demanded steep payments or penalties for churches seeking to leave, in some cases citing figures in the millions.

Supporters argued repeal would restore local control and allow churches to resolve property disputes in court or through negotiation rather than rely on a statute that, they said, had become a tool to prevent disaffiliation.

Representatives of the Baltimore‑Washington Conference, including Bishop Latrell Miller Easterling and the conference chancellor, urged rejection. They described the trust clause as a longstanding covenant in denominational polity that stabilizes property ownership across many denominations and protects charitable donors’ intent. The conference’s counsel said similar denomination‑specific provisions exist in Maryland law for Episcopal, Catholic and Presbyterian bodies, and that courts rely on neutral‑principles analysis —not church doctrine—when adjudicating property disputes. The chancellor noted the denomination provides grants, low‑interest loans, clergy assignments, disaster relief and other supports funded in part by pooled resources that the trust helps preserve.

Legal questions also featured in the hearing. Supporters said the statute improperly locks local churches in because their deeds and church governance documents often predate current denominational disputes; opponents said courts have adjudicated such conflicts and that courts typically uphold trust provisions when the denomination’s governing documents and conduct evidence an implied or express trust.

Committee members asked about constitutional and First Amendment concerns, retroactivity, and whether repeal would destabilize donations given in trust. The Baltimore‑Washington Conference witnesses said the statute provides certainty for title and lenders, and that courts have enforced similar denominational trust provisions elsewhere. Supporters countered that the statute protects a single denomination and urged the legislature to remove the statutory layer to allow local disputes to proceed under neutral law.

What’s next: The bill prompted lengthy testimony from dozens of congregants and denominational officials; the committee did not take a vote at the hearing. Attorneys on both sides acknowledged pending litigation in Anne Arundel County that appealed a circuit court summary judgment; the record had been transmitted to the appellate court days after the senate hearing, and any court outcome may affect legislative deliberations.