## Facts

- David Orion Smith began attending Calvary Christian Church in 1985 and became a member in early 1986.
- Upon joining, Smith agreed not to cause division, to follow the church’s Matthew 18:15–17 process, and to accept church discipline.
- Smith told the pastor, Mark Byers, that he had previously frequented prostitutes and believed the disclosure would be confidential.
- In 1991, the church removed Smith from membership for causing division by challenging church leaders over doctrine, not for the disclosure.
- Smith sought reinstatement; as a condition, he confessed his sins (including the past conduct with prostitutes) to the church board and to his wife, and he was reinstated with a warning against further divisive conduct.
- Smith continued to challenge church leadership and doctrine; the church decided to “mark” him by detailing his sins before the congregation as a disciplinary measure.
- Although Smith submitted a written withdrawal of membership before the planned marking, he remained involved with the church and attended the service at which he expected conflict over doctrine.
- During the service, Byers informed the congregation that Smith had visited prostitutes.
- Smith sued the church and pastor asserting, among other claims, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, breach of contract, and breach of confidentiality based on the disclosure.

## Issues

1. Whether Smith’s intentional tort claims arising from a church’s disciplinary disclosure failed because Smith consented to the church’s discipline and the disclosures incident to that discipline.
2. Whether Smith’s formal membership status at the time of the disclosure controlled the consent analysis.
3. Whether summary disposition for defendants was proper where the record showed no genuine issue of material fact regarding consent.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated summary disposition for defendants.
- The Court resolved the case on nonconstitutional grounds, concluding that Smith’s claims failed as a matter of tort law due to consent.
- The Court held that Smith consented “through his words and deeds” to the disciplinary process, including disclosure of his conduct to the congregation.
- The Court rejected the view that formal membership status at the time of the marking was determinative, focusing instead on Smith’s manifested consent.
- Because consent barred liability for the intentional tort theories premised on the disclosure, defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- Consent is a complete defense to intentional tort liability when the challenged conduct falls within the scope of that consent.
- Consent may be shown by express agreement and by subsequent conduct consistent with acceptance of the relevant authority and practices.
- In disputes involving religious discipline, a court may decide the case on neutral tort principles and avoid constitutional questions when nonconstitutional grounds are dispositive.
- For purposes of consent, formal organizational status (e.g., membership) is not controlling if the plaintiff’s actions show continued participation in, and acceptance of, the challenged process.
- Summary disposition is appropriate where the record establishes no genuine dispute of material fact on a dispositive defense such as consent.

## Conclusion

The court held that Smith’s intentional tort claims based on the church’s disciplinary disclosure could not proceed because Smith had agreed to the church’s disciplinary framework and, by his later actions, continued to consent to the discipline and related disclosures, warranting judgment for the church and pastor as a matter of law.


Smith v. Calvary Christian Church, 614 N.W.2d 590 (Mich. 2000)