## Facts

- Stephen E. Purdum and Katherine C. Purdum (also known as Katherine C. Harcsar) were previously married in a Catholic sacramental marriage and later civilly divorced.
- After the divorce, Harcsar petitioned the Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas’ Archdiocesan Tribunal for a church annulment.
- In her written submission to the Tribunal, Harcsar stated that Purdum had been “diagnosed as bipolar.”
- Purdum alleged the statement was false, known by Harcsar to be false, and defamatory, and he sued Harcsar in Kansas state court for libel based on the Tribunal submission.
- Harcsar moved to dismiss, asserting absolute privilege because the statement was made in a “quasi-judicial” proceeding.
- The Archdiocese opposed the suit, arguing dismissal was required for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under K.S.A. 60-212(b)(1) because the First Amendment and the church autonomy doctrine barred civil adjudication, and it sought to intervene.
- The trial court denied dismissal and denied the Archdiocese’s motion to intervene.
- The Archdiocese appealed; Purdum cross-appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the First Amendment (including the church autonomy doctrine) deprived Kansas courts of subject-matter jurisdiction over a defamation claim based on statements made in a church annulment proceeding.
2. Whether statements made to an ecclesiastical tribunal in an annulment process are absolutely privileged as a matter of law, requiring dismissal at the pleading stage.
3. Whether adjudicating the defamation claim would create constitutionally prohibited entanglement with religion.

## Decision

- The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s rulings.
- The court held Kansas courts had subject-matter jurisdiction because the claim could be resolved as a secular tort without deciding questions of faith, doctrine, or internal church governance.
- The court declined to extend absolute privilege, at the motion-to-dismiss stage, to defamatory statements made in an ecclesiastical annulment process merely because it resembled a “quasi-judicial” proceeding.
- The court affirmed denial of the Archdiocese’s motion to intervene.

## Legal Principles

- Subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed without deference.
- The First Amendment protects religious belief absolutely, but religiously motivated conduct may be regulated for the protection of society; courts may adjudicate secular tort claims arising in a religious setting when resolution does not require deciding doctrine or church governance.
- The Establishment Clause bars excessive entanglement with religion; civil adjudication is permitted when the dispute can be resolved through ordinary judicial fact-finding without interpreting religious law or reviewing ecclesiastical decisions.
- In Kansas defamation law, absolute or qualified privilege is a complete defense; whether a publication is privileged is a question of law for the court.
- Absolute privilege is generally confined to legislative, executive, or judicial proceedings and is not automatically applied to non-governmental fora.

## Conclusion

The court permitted a defamation claim based on alleged false statements in a church annulment petition to proceed because it presented a secular factual dispute within civil-court competence, and the First Amendment and absolute privilege did not require dismissal on the pleadings.


Purdum v. Purdum, 48 Kan. App. 2d 938, 301 P.3d 718 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013)