In brief, for those who can’t get the .pdf right away:
[blockquote]…we conclude that the general church [TEC], not the local church, owns the property in question. Although the deeds to the property have long been in the name of the local church, that church agreed from the beginning of its existence to be part of the greater church and to be bound by its governing documents. These governing documents make clear that church property is held in trust for the general church and may be controlled by the local church only so long as that local church remains a part of the general church. When it disaffiliated from the general church, the local church did not have the right to take the church property with it.[/blockquote]
So then who owns it and, more to the point, has liability? One way or the other. If TEC owns it then let them pay the upkeep and the cost of any judgments.
Sir or Madam if you wish to post an argument instead of a deliberately provocative accusation which is completely off the subject of this thread then please do so. But the original comment had to be deleted-ed.
In brief, when a group of people form a religious corporation that binds itself to submit to the discipline of a larger judicatory like a diocese or national denomination, the courts will hold it to its word and enforce the rules of the diocese or denomination governing the disposition of property. Neutral principles of law that would allow looking outside the four corners of a deed in a non-church property dispute (perhaps by seeking guidance from the corporate charter or contractual obligations) will also allow looking at the entire network of obligations that a church has undertaken. The Statute of Frauds isn’t implicated because the California Supreme Court considered only the text of written documents, including the one executed by the parish in which it agreed to be bound by the diocesan and national canons.
Dale Rye, the Statute of Frauds in California says that a trust in real property cannot be created without the signature of the owner of the property (Probate Code section 15206). It is implicated in this case, because there is no written document by which the parish consented to the imposition of a trust.
If you read the parish articles as giving the national church a power of attorney to impose a trust at any time in the future, then you have to ignore California’s statute about the minimum requirements for a power of attorney to come into existence.
There is no middle ground here: the decision by the California Supreme Court simply abolishes the Statute of Frauds defense for religious corporations. And you call that holding “neutral”?
Exactly right, Chancellor. Only the owner of property can impose a trust, and the California Supreme Court held that the parish had ceded important incidents of “ownership” (the superior right of control over the property) when it voluntarily joined the diocese. The Court held that the trust was created by the national church while the parish was subject to its control, and under Probate Code section 15206 only the creator of the trust can dissolve it.
Sorry, Dale Rye (#6), but you are missing the main point. Probate Code section 15206 says that only the owner of the property can create a trust; in fact, it goes further. It says that a trust is only valid if it is created by a writing signed by the owner of the property.
The national church, no matter to what degree you think it “controls” the local one, has never owned the property.
Words have to have meaning in law. When you stand the statute on its head, and say that the non-owner of property gets to create a valid trust just because it “controls” the owner in some way, you are throwing out the rule of law, and flying by the seat of your pants. A conservator “controls” a conservatee, but even he cannot create a trust in the property of the conservatee without going to the court for written permission.
It is also true that the parent of a minor or guardian of an incompetent who signs a trust agreement (with court approval when necessary) has never owned the property… but I’ll bet the California courts will enforce the trust. In thirty-four years practicing law, I have never yet seen a trust instrument (or anything else) that was personally signed by the owner of property held in the name of a corporation, government, parish, or any other legal-fiction-type person. Such documents have to be signed by some real biological person who is authorized to act on behalf of the abstraction.
The question is “Who is authorized?” I assume you would argue that only the membership of the parish or its local governing board should be legally authorized to impose a trust or otherwise incumber the property. However, that is the theological theory of congregationalism, which the courts are not free to impose on unbelievers. Under hierarchical principles, a larger judicatory or denomination may be authorized to make decisions that are binding on the parish (as an entity, though not on the individual members, of course). That is because parishes in a hierarchical church are not independent persons, but subsidiaries of the larger body subject to that body’s control.
Under neutral principles, one must look to all the relevant documents to determine who has the power to act for the entity. By submitting to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, the parish agreed (in writing) that it will be bound by the decisions of the diocese and national church, including future decisions with which it might disagree. The authorization to act on behalf of the parish might extend, and the Supreme Court held that it does extend, to the ability to sign writings that create a valid trust. As the Supreme Court points out, virtually everyone at the time assumed that the Dennis Canon was only making explicit an implied trust that had always existed.
I have to smile, Dale, when you write that parishes are “not independent persons, but subsidiaries of the larger body subject to that body’s control.” As chancellor of my parish for the past twenty years, I have never seen any evidence of that proposition—but I know a lot of plaintiffs’ lawyers who would love to take you up on it (in the case of other churches—not mine, you understand)! Moreover, even the Dennis Canon lets us expend the entire corpus of funds that are in our control, even though they are technically subject to its terms. It is quite some “trust”, don’t you think, that lets you do with the corpus freely as you like while you are a member in good standing, and only comes into play when you decide to leave? To me, that is not a trust, but a defeasible fee simple title, which reverts to a third party on the occurrence of the fee owner’s change in specified status.
So your analysis reduces to the proposition that when the Diocese conveyed the property to St. James in fee simple in 1950, there was an implied contingency in the habendum that required the fee owner to remain Episcopal; that the implied contingency remained inchoate and unperfected until the enactment of a rule some thirty years later, when it became a written contingency which amended the grant of a fee made thirty years earlier without the necessity of recording any new instrument. Sure, I can understand that; makes perfect legal sense.
I’m sure all the title companies will understand it too, so that we will start seeing reservations show up on our title reports. That will sure make it simple to sell a surplus parish parcel: to convey good title, we will now need the signature of the folks at 815 (or will we require an act of General Convention?), since under the CSC decision they have just as much right to our property as does the Diocese. The Bishop’s signature alone will now not be enough.
So, I ask all of you lawyers, where does this decision put St. David’s and All Saints’, who never did this, at least, not in writing.
[blockquote]”. . .when a group of people form a religious corporation that binds itself to submit to the discipline of a larger judicatory like a diocese or national denomination, the courts will hold it to its word and enforce the rules of the diocese or denomination governing the disposition of property. . .”[/blockquote]
In the case of All Saints’, the deed states unequivocably that the property belongs to the rector, wardens and vestry of [i]All Saints’ Church[/i] (Note the absence of the word “Episcopal.”) We must have had one smart lawyer back in 1926 who didn’t allow the parish to commit itself “forever” to an institution.
Sue Martinez, your attorney in the case, Mr. Sohlgren, has announced that proceedings will continue in the Orange County Superior Court, pending a decision whether or not to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. It was not the language in the deeds that the Court relied upon, but the language when the mission applied to become a parish, and when the parish itself incorporated. I am sure that Mr. Sohlgren and his firm will be in contact with your church to explain what the decision means for you. (He can’t say or post anything along those lines publicly, because of the attorney-client privilege.)
Thanks, Chancellor. I did know that we would go back to the lower court because we never had a trial there. It also may be possible to separate All Saints’ and St. David from St. James, since the circumstances are different. We’ll know more after Eric Solgren, and our lawyer, Lynn Moyer, study today’s decision. This should be done by Wednesday. I wanted to see if you had spotted anything in the decision that would give us hope. I got lost somewhere in the “neutral principles” part.
I have lost all faith in the California Supreme Court’s defense of the rights of the underdog as a result of this decision in favor of a dictatorial association pretending to be a Christian church body. They will have to go a very long way to ever convince me……and probably thousands of others……that they can ever be trusted again!
In brief, for those who can’t get the .pdf right away:
[blockquote]…we conclude that the general church [TEC], not the local church, owns the property in question. Although the deeds to the property have long been in the name of the local church, that church agreed from the beginning of its existence to be part of the greater church and to be bound by its governing documents. These governing documents make clear that church property is held in trust for the general church and may be controlled by the local church only so long as that local church remains a part of the general church. When it disaffiliated from the general church, the local church did not have the right to take the church property with it.[/blockquote]
So then who owns it and, more to the point, has liability? One way or the other. If TEC owns it then let them pay the upkeep and the cost of any judgments.
California Supreme Court Throws out the Statute of Frauds according to the Anglican Curmudgeon
Sir or Madam if you wish to post an argument instead of a deliberately provocative accusation which is completely off the subject of this thread then please do so. But the original comment had to be deleted-ed.
In brief, when a group of people form a religious corporation that binds itself to submit to the discipline of a larger judicatory like a diocese or national denomination, the courts will hold it to its word and enforce the rules of the diocese or denomination governing the disposition of property. Neutral principles of law that would allow looking outside the four corners of a deed in a non-church property dispute (perhaps by seeking guidance from the corporate charter or contractual obligations) will also allow looking at the entire network of obligations that a church has undertaken. The Statute of Frauds isn’t implicated because the California Supreme Court considered only the text of written documents, including the one executed by the parish in which it agreed to be bound by the diocesan and national canons.
Dale Rye, the Statute of Frauds in California says that a trust in real property cannot be created without the signature of the owner of the property (Probate Code section 15206). It is implicated in this case, because there is no written document by which the parish consented to the imposition of a trust.
If you read the parish articles as giving the national church a power of attorney to impose a trust at any time in the future, then you have to ignore California’s statute about the minimum requirements for a power of attorney to come into existence.
There is no middle ground here: the decision by the California Supreme Court simply abolishes the Statute of Frauds defense for religious corporations. And you call that holding “neutral”?
Exactly right, Chancellor. Only the owner of property can impose a trust, and the California Supreme Court held that the parish had ceded important incidents of “ownership” (the superior right of control over the property) when it voluntarily joined the diocese. The Court held that the trust was created by the national church while the parish was subject to its control, and under Probate Code section 15206 only the creator of the trust can dissolve it.
Sorry, Dale Rye (#6), but you are missing the main point. Probate Code section 15206 says that only the owner of the property can create a trust; in fact, it goes further. It says that a trust is only valid if it is created by a writing signed by the owner of the property.
The national church, no matter to what degree you think it “controls” the local one, has never owned the property.
Words have to have meaning in law. When you stand the statute on its head, and say that the non-owner of property gets to create a valid trust just because it “controls” the owner in some way, you are throwing out the rule of law, and flying by the seat of your pants. A conservator “controls” a conservatee, but even he cannot create a trust in the property of the conservatee without going to the court for written permission.
It is also true that the parent of a minor or guardian of an incompetent who signs a trust agreement (with court approval when necessary) has never owned the property… but I’ll bet the California courts will enforce the trust. In thirty-four years practicing law, I have never yet seen a trust instrument (or anything else) that was personally signed by the owner of property held in the name of a corporation, government, parish, or any other legal-fiction-type person. Such documents have to be signed by some real biological person who is authorized to act on behalf of the abstraction.
The question is “Who is authorized?” I assume you would argue that only the membership of the parish or its local governing board should be legally authorized to impose a trust or otherwise incumber the property. However, that is the theological theory of congregationalism, which the courts are not free to impose on unbelievers. Under hierarchical principles, a larger judicatory or denomination may be authorized to make decisions that are binding on the parish (as an entity, though not on the individual members, of course). That is because parishes in a hierarchical church are not independent persons, but subsidiaries of the larger body subject to that body’s control.
Under neutral principles, one must look to all the relevant documents to determine who has the power to act for the entity. By submitting to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, the parish agreed (in writing) that it will be bound by the decisions of the diocese and national church, including future decisions with which it might disagree. The authorization to act on behalf of the parish might extend, and the Supreme Court held that it does extend, to the ability to sign writings that create a valid trust. As the Supreme Court points out, virtually everyone at the time assumed that the Dennis Canon was only making explicit an implied trust that had always existed.
I have to smile, Dale, when you write that parishes are “not independent persons, but subsidiaries of the larger body subject to that body’s control.” As chancellor of my parish for the past twenty years, I have never seen any evidence of that proposition—but I know a lot of plaintiffs’ lawyers who would love to take you up on it (in the case of other churches—not mine, you understand)! Moreover, even the Dennis Canon lets us expend the entire corpus of funds that are in our control, even though they are technically subject to its terms. It is quite some “trust”, don’t you think, that lets you do with the corpus freely as you like while you are a member in good standing, and only comes into play when you decide to leave? To me, that is not a trust, but a defeasible fee simple title, which reverts to a third party on the occurrence of the fee owner’s change in specified status.
So your analysis reduces to the proposition that when the Diocese conveyed the property to St. James in fee simple in 1950, there was an implied contingency in the habendum that required the fee owner to remain Episcopal; that the implied contingency remained inchoate and unperfected until the enactment of a rule some thirty years later, when it became a written contingency which amended the grant of a fee made thirty years earlier without the necessity of recording any new instrument. Sure, I can understand that; makes perfect legal sense.
I’m sure all the title companies will understand it too, so that we will start seeing reservations show up on our title reports. That will sure make it simple to sell a surplus parish parcel: to convey good title, we will now need the signature of the folks at 815 (or will we require an act of General Convention?), since under the CSC decision they have just as much right to our property as does the Diocese. The Bishop’s signature alone will now not be enough.
subscribing for now…
Intercessor
So, I ask all of you lawyers, where does this decision put St. David’s and All Saints’, who never did this, at least, not in writing.
[blockquote]”. . .when a group of people form a religious corporation that binds itself to submit to the discipline of a larger judicatory like a diocese or national denomination, the courts will hold it to its word and enforce the rules of the diocese or denomination governing the disposition of property. . .”[/blockquote]
In the case of All Saints’, the deed states unequivocably that the property belongs to the rector, wardens and vestry of [i]All Saints’ Church[/i] (Note the absence of the word “Episcopal.”) We must have had one smart lawyer back in 1926 who didn’t allow the parish to commit itself “forever” to an institution.
Sue Martinez, your attorney in the case, Mr. Sohlgren, has announced that proceedings will continue in the Orange County Superior Court, pending a decision whether or not to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. It was not the language in the deeds that the Court relied upon, but the language when the mission applied to become a parish, and when the parish itself incorporated. I am sure that Mr. Sohlgren and his firm will be in contact with your church to explain what the decision means for you. (He can’t say or post anything along those lines publicly, because of the attorney-client privilege.)
Thank you Chancellor and Dale Rye…your interchange is helpful to me in trying to understand this decision.
Thanks, Chancellor. I did know that we would go back to the lower court because we never had a trial there. It also may be possible to separate All Saints’ and St. David from St. James, since the circumstances are different. We’ll know more after Eric Solgren, and our lawyer, Lynn Moyer, study today’s decision. This should be done by Wednesday. I wanted to see if you had spotted anything in the decision that would give us hope. I got lost somewhere in the “neutral principles” part.
I have lost all faith in the California Supreme Court’s defense of the rights of the underdog as a result of this decision in favor of a dictatorial association pretending to be a Christian church body. They will have to go a very long way to ever convince me……and probably thousands of others……that they can ever be trusted again!