Category Archives: Property

Property Cases Argued Before The California Supreme Court Today

1 Reply

[Update:  Thanks to Episcopal Café and the comment from Jeff in VA below, they provided the link to the archived Supreme Court session and I was able to watch it again.  Jeff is right, the first time I missed a significant grilling of the denomination’s lawyer on Neutral Principles.  I have added one marked update based on my second viewing and adjusted a couple of my other comments.]

I am probably way too much of a polity wonk for my own good.  (That noise you heard was my wife saying “Amen!”)

I arranged my morning around the webcast of the oral arguments before the California Supreme Court of the consolidated Episcopal Church Cases about churches taking property when they leave a denomination.  While this case may be about three churches leaving the Episcopal Church, the decision will clarify California state law and PC(USA) governing bodies have filed amicus briefs in this case.  As a polity wonk I found the hour of arguments fascinating.

Some general impressions:  All of the lawyers were well prepared as were the justices.  They were quoting cases and statutes back and forth at each other by case name and number and frequently left me in the dust.  However, much of the time the discussion was in terms that I could understand and it was an interesting argument.  And while the lawyers may have had presentations ready to give, they were quickly interrupted by the justices who wanted to question them about the detailed legal points.

One of the most interesting points was that both sets of lawyers argued that under either legal principle, those being principle of government which would favor a hierarchical denomination and neutral principles which would favor the individual church, their side should prevail.  I must admit that between the legal argument and the interruptions (I could not completely shut the world out) I had trouble following why the denomination should win under neutral principles.  It may also have something to do with the weakness of the argument because it was clear that at least a couple of justices had trouble buying it.  What was more interesting, and has a certain degree of logic, was the individual church’s argument that they still win under principle of government.  The argument was that the actual church government was not the Episcopal Church but the Worldwide Anglican Communion which they have not left but are still under its governance.  This clearly is not an argument that can be used by a church trying to leave with contested property from the PC(USA).

A point where the denomination’s lawyers did better than the congregations’ lawyer was regarding the law in other states.  When the justices asked what the status is in other states (I think this was a “never ask a question you don’t already know the answer to”) the congregations’ lawyer answered “mixed.”  The denomination’s lawyers answered that other states have favored principle of government.  (It is my understanding that there are few similar cases which have made it all the way to the state supreme courts in this current round but that the government principle has been favored so far.)

The congregations’ lawyer took a real beating over the fact that one church (St. James) was originally an Episcopal mission church and when if became chartered it agreed to be “forever bound” by the Episcopal Church canons and attached those documents to the state incorporation papers.  His argument was that the canons are ecclesiastical law and property is not governed there but under state law.  One of the justices flatly stated that she was in favor of neutral principles but she can’t see how they could be applied here when the church agreed to be “forever bound” by the canons.  The counter argument from the lawyer was that “forever bound” was a spiritual promise like “death do us part” and that property is not a spiritual matter.  That and the canons don’t apply to property, or at least did not until the trust clause was added which was after chartering and incorporation.  The denomination’s lawyer argued that even if the current language of the trust clause was added more recently, language that covered the property was in the canons even at the time of incorporation.  Under questioning the lawyer also acknowledged that an independent church that joined the Episcopal could not, under canon law, leave with their property at a later time.

I wish I could tell you what the denomination’s lawyers got hammered on but I unfortunately had to deal with another item at work and missed  a segment of their arguments.  As I mentioned above there was some sharp questioning about their contention that the denomination should still win under neutral principles.

Update:  On viewing the archived video it is clear that the denomination’s lawyers did take a grilling on neutral principles.  The justices pointed out that the principle of government was an old, Civil War era decision and that neutral principles was the “modern” decision.  The denomination’s lawyer was quick with the response that as recently as a few years ago the body she was arguing in front of, the California Supreme Court, had reaffirmed principle of government for the state.  In addition, she made the “interesting” argument that principle of government was really just a religion specific sub-case of neutral principles because by deferring to the church government a court avoids the entanglement in religion of neutral principles.

While the trust clause issues are familiar on the national level, since that goes back to a U.S. Supreme Court case. The local twist is corporate law and much of the argument, especially with the congregations’ lawyer, was regarding the state donation statute and how, under that statute as I followed the argument, the aspect of property in trust must be explicit not implied like the canons are.

In spite of that last issue, which I had trouble judging, the general impression I got was that the justices seemed more sympathetic to the denomination’s arguments so I would not be surprised to see this decision come out in their favor, not withstanding the justice who sided with neutral principles but was pointing out the “forever bound.”

I must admit that in listening to the arguments I was bothered by the way the argument was made that the property was somehow separate from the ecclesiastical law.  I do realize that this was an argument from a legal perspective, but it just hit me wrong that somehow the property was separated as different in the mission to follow and serve Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

As I mentioned, if I had to bet on this one hour alone I would expect the denomination to win.  However, there are a lot of other parts to this case and it was clear that different justices were focusing on different aspects.  When the decision finally comes down it will be interesting to see what of today’s proceedings is found in it.

Update:  The Episcopal Café article in the comments also has part of an article from a subscription site on California Law where a legal counsel that saw the arguments discusses the session and feels that the court is favoring the denomination, or “over arching church,” in this case.

(As a side note, I had the webcast on a few minutes longer and the following case had some hilarious moments in the arguments.  It was something about parolees needing to inform their parole officer 24 hours in advance if there is a change in status with their pet, any pet.  The most obvious justification was for the officer’s safety if the individual got a
dog, but there were comments about “silent” animals like turtles alerting the parolee to the officer’s arrival and questions how you would notify the officer 24 hours in advance of the death of a goldfish.  On the latter the state conceded that there would need to be “reasonable enforcement.”  But at times I thought a Monty Python sketch was about to break out.)

A Bit More On Property Cases

Leave a reply

First, my thanks to Lou for the additional info on the Kirk of the Hills case that he posted as a comment to my previous post.  He reports that there will be no written decision by the judge so I can stop watching for that and we won’t have any thing there to parse for the legal theory.  This will give us the state supreme court decision, when that is issued, as the next legal step in this case.

However, another case, that of All Saints Anglican Church of Rochester, New York, is a bit more advanced in the legal system.  The case, which I have mentioned before, is very similar to the Kirk of the Hills situation with a church that raised all the money to acquire the property and build the building before the “trust clause” and was then evicted from the building by the diocese.  Again, the church has lost legal decisions and the appeals are approaching the state supreme court.  In news reports today those associated with the case are suggesting that this could be the case that reaches the U.S. Supreme Court first.  It will be close since the California Episcopal Church Cases will go to that state supreme court in about a month so they might be the federal test case.

As always, stay tuned.

Summary Judgement in the Kirk of the Hills Property Case

2 Replies

In the case CJ-2006-5063

The District Court for Tulsa County, Oklahoma granted summary judgment in favor of Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) on September 9, 2008, and denied the motion for summary judgment of Kirk of the Hills.  Judge Jefferson Sellers enforced the decision of the Presbytery’s Administrative Commission and ordered Kirk of the Hills to convey the church’s real and personal property to Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery.  [from the Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery Press Release]

Tulsa County District Judge Jefferson Sellers ruled today that the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) and the Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery of the PCUSA (EOP) own the Kirk of the Hills property at 4102 E. 61st Street, under the denomination’s constitution. A constitutional provision inserted in 1983 provides that the denomination holds a trust interest in the property of a local church, even when the local church bought and paid for the property. The Kirk of the Hills paid for the property over the last four decades and the deeds are in the Kirk Corporation’s name. [from the Kirk of the Hills Press Release]

While I generally follow the property cases currently underway in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and The Episcopal Church, I usually leave the routine coverage of the cases to other sources.  (PresbyLaw, The Layman Online, Virtue Online)  The decision that was handed down yesterday in the case of Kirk of the Hills Church of Tulsa, Oklahoma (formally Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), now Evangelical Presbyterian Church) is notable in a couple of respects.

First, Kirk of the Hills is cited as the largest church, and one of the first churches, to depart from the PC(USA) following the 2006 General Assembly adoption of the PUP report.  This case was being watched by the churches as a test case of how the denomination and legal system would handle these cases.

This leads into the second interesting point, the legal theory of the decision.  The written decision has not appeared in the court database yet (if I’m checking the right database) but I’ll do a little reading between the lines of the press releases.  The Kirk press release is shorter (one page) and contains fewer legal details but the section I quoted at the beginning implies that their legal theory was that since the church has had deed to the property before the explicit trust clause then they own the property.  The Presbytery press release is richer in legal detail including part of the successful legal theory and says:

The Court followed the “hierarchical deference” approach in awarding the property to the Presbytery, which holds the property in trust for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  Oklahoma has been considered a “hierarchical deference” jurisdiction since the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling in 1973 in Presbytery of Cimmarron v. Westminster Presbyterian Church of Enid.

In reading through the press release it struck me that while the trust clause was mentioned above, it was always in the context of the church structure.  Furthermore, the Presbytery document places an emphasis on the Administrative Commission, like the opening quote above, as a demonstration of the PC(USA) hierarchical church.  It appears then, that the Administrative Commission and the process was a more significant legal argument than the trust clause alone and it seems to have worked in arguing against the Kirk’s argument about the trust clause.

While I look forward to reading this decision when made available somewhere, in skimming through the 1973 ruling, which relies heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Watson v. Jones (1871), it does not surprise me that with this legal precedent a District Court ruled in this way.  It seems that if Kirk is going to retain its property it will have to convince the current Oklahoma Supreme Court that this case differs from Cimmarron v. Westminster.

An appeal decision has not been made but is likely, according to the church press release.  Kirk and EOP have 20 days to make arrangements about the property under the judge’s order.

Beyond the legal arguments where does this leave everyone?  It seems that EOP will have a big empty box on its hands and a 2,400 member church with a 175 family preschool will be looking for a new location.  It is too soon to know what is going to happen here but I think both parties could use our prayers.  While this predates the GA action, maybe it is time to remember the “gracious, pastoral response.”

UPDATE 9/11/08:  The Presbyterian News Service has issued an article/press release on the decision which draws heavily on the Presbytery press release I also drew on.  But it is interesting that in News Service article they use the phrase “trust clause” and place an emphasis on that while I read the Presbytery’s release to emphasize the Administrative Commission process as being important.  I did find it interesting that the New Service article describes Kirk of the Hills departure with the more dramatic term “bolted” without any additional facts about the swiftness or legal proceedings to support the use of the term.  Terms like “departed,” “disaffiliated,” or “realigned” might have been more appropriate if the circumstances of the departure are not spelled out in the story to suppor the dramatic term.  I also found it interesting that the article describes the PC(USA) as a 2.3 million member denomination when at the end of 2007 the membership of 2,209,546 would round to 2.2 million members.  It could be habit, 2007 is the first year the PC(USA) would round to 2.2 million members, or it could be that we were 2.3 million members when the process started in 2006.

Also, I have still not found the full decision posted anywhere yet but…  PresbyLaw has info from the hearing where the decision was read and the report there is that the judge suggested that on appeal the court could go with “neutral principles” and that could go in favor of the church.

Finally, the word from other sources, included in PresbyLaw, is that the church will appeal.

Closely Watched Judicial Cases Affecting the PC(USA) Scheduled For October

Leave a reply

We got news this week that two closely watched judicial cases with implications for the Presbyterian Church (USA) will be heard by their appropriate judicial bodies this coming October.

The first of these will be the trial of the Rev. Janet Edwards by the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbytery of Pittsburgh on October 1.

This hit the news last week with a news release by the Presbyterian News Service about the case.  I am at a bit of a loss to explain the release of this news item at this time unless a) it was a slow news day or b) the trial date was announced.  I’ve been looking for documents related to the trial on line and not finding any so all I can say is that I suspect, but can not confirm, option b.

A quick recap of this case:  The Rev. Janet Edwards preformed a same-sex ceremony for a lesbian couple back in June, 2005, and everyone involved with the ceremony is describing it as a “wedding.”  A complaint was made, an investigating committee formed, and the investigating committee filed charges.  One little problem… The charges were filed four days past the deadline that investigating committee had to meet so the Presbytery PJC dismissed the charges.  A new complaint was made, a new investigating commission went to work and filed five charges, in a timely manner, and back in June the PJC reviewed the charges and dismissed three of the five.  Among the new charges was the accusation that parts of the ceremony were not Christian, but contained Buddhist elements related to the beliefs of one of the partners.  That was part of what was dismissed on the theory that if a ceremony is prohibited in the first place you can’t specify how it should be done properly and what is improper.  (If that theory sounds familiar hold the thought, I’ll get back to it in a minute.) (Story on the dismissal from Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.)

A few notes and comments on the story so far:  In researching this I have seen several references (like this article) to the original dismissal as being for “statute of limitations.”  While I am not a lawyer I understand the statute of limitations to relate to the offending action not to the judicial process itself.  Since the investigating committee missed a deadline this would be an administrative problem.  And since the charges were brought up again clearly it is still within the time limit on the alleged infraction.  Related to the charges being brought up again, this new hearing has also been referred to as “double-jeopardy.”  Again, the first case did not actually go to a “guilty/not guilty” decision, therefore it is not double jeopardy in my understanding of the process.

It is interesting to consider the outcome of this case.  It would have been within the realm of possibility, based on the current legal precedent, that all the charges against the Rev. Edwards were dismissed back in June since that hearing was after the Spahr v. Redwoods Decision in April.  That decision said “By the definition in W-4.9001, a same sex ceremony can never be a marriage.”  It went on to conclude that since it can’t be a marriage the minister can not be guilty of preforming a same-sex marriage.  All the Presbytery PJC had to do was cite this precedent and “game over.”  But this result would have been about as unsatisfying as the GAPJC decision.  And the dismissal of three of the charges does have that similar ring of legal reasoning.  (I am not a church lawyer so if I missed a critical point in our polity here related to the hearing or dismissing the case please let me know.)

So it appears that the PJC sees a point in hearing this case.  It could be that Edwards will be acquitted based on the Spahr decision.  It could be that she will be acquitted or found guilty on the merits, rather than the definitions, of this case alone.  If it is decided on its own merits I would expect this to make its way up the judicial ladder and it could be the case for a more satisfying decision by the GAPJC.  The GAPJC has eight new members elected at the last GA so the balance or dynamics of the body may change.  We will have to see.

In the latest Presbyterian News Service article Rev. Edwards is quoted as saying “I’m sure that we will press the parts of the Spahr decision that
supports my presiding at the wedding and calling Brenda and Nancy’s
relationship a marriage. We see a lot of positive
things in the Spahr decision.”  I would say to be careful what you ask for because by the Spahr decision says that by definition the relationship can not be a marriage.  The Rev. Edwards has a web site with information about the case called “A Time To Embrace” on which she has posted a statement in her defense.  The brief makes specific reference to W-4.9001.  After the GAPJC made clear in the Spahr decision that this is the definition of marriage and anything that deviates from this is not a marriage, Rev. Edwards now argues (p. 31) “[W-4.9001] is definitional in nature only, and contains none of the language that the Book of Order instructs must be present to set forth a mandate or a prohibition.”  The brief goes on to argue that there is no prohibition on same-gender marriage ceremonies, seeming to ignore that the fact that one of the decisions they cite says there are no such thing as same-gender marriage ceremonies based upon the Book of Order passage Edwards’ cites.  While Edwards’ brief does briefly mention the definition in the Spahr, it puts much more emphasis that an acquittal is in order because the charges are vague and not defensible.

There is one additional point in the brief that I find interesting.  It makes note of the action by the 218th General Assembly to vacate previous Authoritative Interpretations regarding the ordination of self-acknowledged practicing homosexuals, and it discusses the GAPJC’s divided interpretation of W-4.9001 as to its applicibility as a prohibition against future same-gender marriage ceremonies.  The brief does not mention that the 218th General Assembly, by a wide margin (I got it right that time), voted not to propose changes to W-4.9001.

Well, that was more of a point-by-point analysis than I had planned.  OK, on to the second case…

Regarding the second judicial case, I was notified two days ago that trial is now set to begin on the “Episcopal Church Cases” before the California Supreme Court on October 8.  Don’t let the “Episcopal” distract you; there are amicus curiae briefs for this case filed by Clifton Kirkpatrick and the national office, the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii, and the Presbyterian Lay Committee.

This case is a test case on church property in California and comes from three linked cases out of Los Angeles and Orange Counties where three Episcopal Churches tried to realign with other Anglican communions outside the US and the Dioceses went to court to keep the property.  The case is highlighted by the fact that in this particular case the Appellate Court decision used the “highest government” legal theory, which favored the hierarchical church and ruled against the particular churches in their bid to hold onto property, while other Appellate Court decisions have used the “neutral-principles analysis” which would favor the particular congregation.  With both on the books the Supreme Court took the case and will decide on the proper legal theory for our state.

I probably don’t need to remind any regular readers that there is a lot riding on this state Supreme Court decision.  Along the length of the State of California there are Presbyterian, as well as Episcopal, churches trying to get out with their property and there are rumblings of more waiting in the wings for this decision.  I don’t know how the decision in this case could influence other places in the country, but it could have a major influence on the denominational map in California.  Then again, we could go with the “Graceful Seperation” that General Assembly endorsed.  Again, time will tell.

Synod of the Sun (PC(USA)) Establishes Administrative Commission for Presbytery of South Louisiania Property Cases

3 Replies

The big news over the weekend in the Politics of Presbyterianism was that the Synod of the Sun established an administrative commission to work with the Presbytery of South Louisiana regarding the Presbytery’s handling of church property cases.

Background
Back on October 28, 2007, the membership of First Presbyterian Church of Baton Rouge, LA, voted 422-60 to leave the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and transfer to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC).  It is interesting to note that the pastor of the church is the Rev. Gerrit Dawson, who is co-moderator of the New Wineskins Association of Churches along with the Rev. Dean Weaver.  Rev. Weaver’s church, Memorial Park Presbyterian Church in Allison Park, PA, just came to terms with Pittsburgh Presbytery concerning its release to the EPC.

The total number voting at the meeting, 482, represents only one-quarter of the membership of the church according to the article published by the Presbyterian News Service.

The significant piece of background noted in that article is that the Presbytery of South Louisiana had granted to First Presbyterian clear title to their property roughly a year before the vote so the church was free to take their property with them without further legal action or negotiation.

Synod Meeting
The published facts in this action are from a single source, a Synod of the Sun news story about the matter on the Presbyterian Neighbor News.  The action appears to have been taken at a twice-annual stated meeting of the Synod of the Sun but the packet for the meeting does not contain any advanced information about this business.

The news story says that in a letter to the Synod Executive dated April 8 presbytery pastors and elders “expressed a concern regarding our presbytery’s leadership,
particularly pertaining to the presbytery’s response to churches
seeking title to their properties.”  The letter “further stated that presbytery leaders gave insufficient
consideration to denominational protocols on such matters and gave
insufficient consultation with other churches.”  Finally, the letter is said to ask for an administrative commission to look into this.

According to the article the next step was a meeting:

Synod Executive Judy Fletcher met with members of the presbytery
council of South Louisiana, April 22, and said they concurred that
outside consultation would be helpful. The council sent a letter to
synod supporting an administrative commission but asking that the power
of original jurisdiction not be given.

The news story says that this past weekend those at the Synod meeting unanimously approved the administrative commission:

Synod commissioners established an administrative commission charged
with determining the “validity of the presbytery’s procedures and
decisions (past, pending, and future) regarding various congregations
and their properties.”

The synod document further stated that
“All pending and future decisions regarding property in the Presbytery
of South Louisiana shall require the approval of the commission.” The
commission shall also listen to expressions of concern regarding the
presbytery’s leadership and suggest ways the presbytery can move toward
a fuller expression of the ministry of Christ’s Church.

Reaction
I probably don’t need to tell you that from the conservative quarters of the PC(USA) the reaction has been swift and strong.  With the past history of the “Louisville Papers” and the perception of the Office of the General Assembly wanting to hold onto the property at all costs this appears as top-down punitive and corrective action on the Presbytery for being gracious and pastoral with churches that wanted to depart the denomination.  In particular Bill Crawford at Bayou Christian, Toby Brown at A Classical Presbyterian, David Fischler at The Reformed Pastor, and Michael McCarty at Around the Scuttlebutt have particularly negative views of this action and the possible conspiracy with Louisville it represents.

Comments
On one level this action can just be viewed as the way that our connectional system operates.  When there is a disagreement on one level we move up to the next-higher governing body to get help and direction from the collective wisdom of that body to help us get around a disagreement or rough patch.  Not knowing any facts from other sources, and ignoring that a controversial topic is in play here, the sequence of events, steps taken, and the unanimous vote, all would make it appear that this is our Presbyterian system working properly, decently, and in order.

But as the reaction in the blogosphere demonstrates this is a loaded topic.  It is my view that there has been a disconnect between the national structure of the PC(USA) and the “people in the pews” which makes an action like this, even if innocent, appear disciplinary and controlling.  And with the Louisville Papers in circulation this can also be interpreted as conspiratory.  The press release is carefully crafted and with no other sources to go on it appears that a concerted effort was made to put a controlled positive public relations spin on this.  The two areas of concern for me are the short lead time which prevented information from being in the advanced packet, and that the only governing body to speak on this is the Synod of the Sun and there is no comment from the Presbytery of South Louisiana.

But related to both the “innocent” and the “conspiratory” interpretations of this action is a question I always ask:  Is an administrative commission the best option?  I always keep in mind that an administrative commission like this one is the second most powerful action a governing body can take regarding a lower governing body.  It is only out-done by an administrative commission that is granted the power of “original jurisdiction.”  In a real sense this can be the “Ecclesiastical Nuke” that Rev. Fischler refers to it as.

For those readers who may not understand the full implications, in Presbyterian lingo a “commission” is a group elected and given certain powers and responsibilities to act on behalf of and with the authority of the governing body that created it.  When granted original jurisdiction, the commission can take full control of the lower governing body.  When a presbytery establishes an administrative commission to work with a church, if that commission has original jurisdiction they can set themselves up as the session of the church if they decide it is necessary.  In general Presbyterians have two types of commissions, administrative and judicial.

So, was an administrative commission the best option?  Not being there and having all the facts I can not say.  I will say that when I was working with my presbytery, particularly as the moderator of the Committee on Ministry, it was my view and experience that an administrative commission was a last resort.  Creating one to work with a church was often viewed as a power play by the presbytery much as this is viewed in some quarters as a power play by the synod.  Yes, there are cases were a body with the authority was needed and yes there are cases where an administrative commission is welcomed.  But I have found that beginning with task forces, listening teams, or discussion groups was at least a “kinder and gentler” way to begin the process.  Showing up at the door as an administrative commission, however well intentioned, was not always viewed as a friendly gesture.  “Hi.  We’re from the presbytery and we are here to help you.”

I was aware that in other presbyteries and other synods some of my counterparts felt that administrative commissions were the way to go.  The idea was to send in the big guns, get things cleaned up quickly, and get out.  (Commando Presbyterian governance?) 

Maybe they are right but it never sat well with me both from a connectional and pastoral perspective.  This is a view reaffirmed by a friend of mine at a recent presbytery meeting where the administrative commission he was chairing made their final report and was dismissed.  After delivering the final report he was allowed some personal comments in which he said that administrative commissions are a painful solution in many situations and while they sometimes may be necessary they should only be used as a last resort.

Preach it brother!

Who owns the Web Site — A New Property Battle in the Web 2.0 Church

Leave a reply

Over the last couple months a number of events have transpired related to the Episcopal and Anglican Diocese(s) of San Joaquin in California.  Briefly, the Diocese voted to realign from the American Episcopal Church to the Anglican Southern Cone, the American Episcopal Church appointed a new provisional bishop to shepherd the remaining Episcopal faithful, and over the weekend The Episcopal Church held a service of healing and forgiveness Friday evening and a special convocation and service of celebration Saturday that included the confirmation and installation of Bishop Jerry Lamb as the provisional bishop of the diocese.  The Episcopal Diocese is now gearing up to get their property back from the realigned Anglicans.

While all of that was expected the surprise of the weekend, as reported by VirtueOnline, is that the web site of the Anglican group, www.sanjoaquin.anglican.org, has been replaced by a redirect to the Episcopal Diocese web site at www.diosanjoaquin.org.  Details of the switch are not clear yet, but the Anglican site is safe, now at the address www.sjoaquin.net.  Something happened at their web host, anglican.org and the details are not complete yet.

As a geek, web builder, and network administrator, I curious about some of the details and hope more come out.  However, it serves as a lesson that in the Web 2.0 world the church’s property includes not just brick and mortar but names, addresses, and on-line content.  You have been warned.

Score one for the trust clause

Leave a reply

A PC(USA) press release is reporting that the judge in the case of Torrance First Presbyterian Church vs Presbytery of Hanmi has granted summary judgment to the presbytery giving it title to the church property.  (I previously wrote on this and other SoCal cases on Aug. 18) Checking the web site for the Los Angeles Superior Court (click “Case Summary on the left and then you can go to the bottom of the page and type in the case number BC332180) it indicates that a “Motion Hearing” was completed on Monday, Nov. 27, but the status of the case is still pending with a final status conference on 4/27/07 and trial set for 4/30/07.  It could be the web site has not been updated or they are waiting for the full decision to be issued in a couple of weeks or the summary judgment is preliminary and it can be challenged.  The related case (YC052718) does not show any activity since September.

OK, those are the facts as the PC(USA) and the court web site are reporting them.  I am looking for an alternate source to see if there is more to it.  However, I still stand by my comments from the previous post:  The Torrance case, and the others in SoCal, are very much the result of divided congregations that have internal disputes and are not really about the present atmosphere of (mostly) unified congregations wanting to leave the denomination over decisions by the GA.  What the present cases do show is the strategy and tactics that the PC(USA) higher governing bodies will probably be taking against churches that try to leave with their property.

But at what cost?  The monetary cost of this and the three other cases has been significant and the Synod of Southern California and Hawai’i, already financially challenged, is needing to find creative ways to pay for this.  (More on that later.  I have a commentary on Synods in process that might see the light of day in the next week.)  And I am personally disturbed by the tone of the PC(USA) press release.  It strikes me as having a very triumphalist attitude making reference to the “break-away faction” and the “loyalist Presbyterian Church (USA) faction.” 

I will keep watching this story.  The press release says the full decision will be issued by the judge in a few weeks.

Property Disputes – Today’s news nothing more than a distraction

1 Reply

Greetings,

   One of the things that I have found fascinating as the
property dispute escalates is that the PC(USA) news service has
been absolutely silent, until today…sort of.

The PC(USA) News Service has today issued a press release trumpeting
their success in three cases in Southern California with a fourth case
pending.

HOWEVER, these cases have one thing in common which the developing
cases do not appear to have:  The all involve divided
congregations.  It is not clear that in the case of a unified
congregation wanting to leave the PC(USA) that this case law would
apply.

Furthermore, in at lease two of the cases, Torrance v. Hanmi and Serone
v. Hanmi, I’m not sure what the News Service is trumpeting.  If
you go to the LA Superior Court web site
and type in the case numbers (BC332180 and BC327134 respectively), both
cases are listed with a status of pending and the Torrance specifically
indicates pre-trial motions.  Now the Serone case may be
substantially over on July 20 when a motion for summary adjudication
was denied and the PC(USA) news service indicates that a confidential
settlement was reached.  The Torrance case is acknowledged as
going to trial so the PC(USA) is promoting success with an injunction
and pre-trial hearings.