# Zeigler v. Church of the Brethren General Board

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · September 25, 2002 · 570 Pa. 2

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2332905

## Case

- **Full name:** Reverend Arthur S. ZEIGLER, Petitioner, v. CHURCH OF THE BRETHREN GENERAL BOARD A/K/A Church of the Brethren Annual Conference; Southern District of Pennsylvania Church of the Brethren; Karen Dentler; Reverend Joseph A. Detrick; Reverend Larry Dentler; Reverend Warren M. Eshbach; Janice Custer; Joseph Kochansky; Reverend Donald Myers; Carol Vanhorn; Cindy Leiphart; Leonard Stoner; And Barbara Rotz, Respondents
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** September 25, 2002
- **Citations:** 570 Pa. 2; 807 A.2d 872; 2002 Pa. LEXIS 2020
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Per Curiam
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2332905

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting it is "improper for court to act as advocate and sua sponte raise defense on behalf of party”

## Opinion text

*3
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 25th day of September, 2002, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. Defendants, Larry Dentler, Joseph A. Detrick, Warren M. Eshbach, Janice Custer, Joseph Kochansky, Donald Myers, Carol Van Horn, Cindy Leiphart, Leonard Stoner and Barbara Rotz, in their individual capacities, were required to assert their affirmative defense of privilege in responsive pleadings.
See
Pa.R.C.P. 1030(a). Defendants filed preliminary objections but did not raise ecclesiastical privilege before the trial court. Accordingly, defendants’ failure to raise the issue precluded the Superior Court from doing so
sua sponte. See MacGregor v. Mediq Inc.,
395 Pa.Super. 221 , 576 A.2d 1123, 1127-28 (1990) (improper for court to act as advocate and
sua sponte
raise defense on behalf of party). The Superior Court’s conclusion regarding ecclesiastical privilege is vacated. This matter is remanded to the Superior Court to determine whether the trial court erred in sustaining the aforementioned defendants’ demurrers. Jurisdiction relinquished.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2332905. Public record. Not legal advice.