The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles on Friday lost its bid to recover attorneys fees and court costs from the church and some of its members who voted to break away from the Episcopal church in 2004.
The split led to a bitter legal battle over St. James’ Via Lido Campus.
“The local church is free of the specter of attorneys fees and the diocese suffered a significant defeat,” said attorney Daniel Lula, who represents St. James.
“The local church is free of the specter of attorneys fees and the diocese suffered a significant defeat,†said attorney Daniel Lula, who represents St. James.
This is a joke. For any of you who aren’t attorneys, this is simply Daniel Lula’s attempt to justify his work. There is no “significant defeat.”
I beg to differ. If the diocese was really seeking $10 million in fees (or some other ridiculous amount), this loss removes the fear of litigation from those who might seek to leave TEC and keep the property for which their forebears paid and they have maintained.
I agree that it’s a nice little win. But as with losses, I don’t get excited over either wins or losses.
It will be many years of steady lawsuits in many many states. Long haul.
Some will be won — quite a few lost.
I’m just thrilled we get to have these things tried in an objective court of law.
It’s a great country!
No 2. what about those who seek to stay in the Episcopal Church and keep the property for which their forebears paid and they have maintained? Or was this a case where every single member of the congregation voted to leave the Episcopal Church, none wished to stay with it and the positions of the forebears on the issues of the day were well-known?
One of the big problems with this idea of leaving but staying is that these decisions are never unanimous and no one seems to pay much attention to the poor sods who have contributed just as much on an individual basis to maintain the church in the past and who have no desire to see the Church split up.
#4: Of course the vote to leave was not unanimous, but if I remember correctly, it was an extremely large majority.
One of the issues, which most commentators about this case tend to overlook, is that it has not yet been settled. All the diocese has won so far is the right to have their case proceed to trial. As the defense lawyers have recently pointed out, when that happens, the diocese is going to have to deal with some of the facts on the ground, not least of which is that the church claims to have a written promise from the previous Bishop of Los Angeles that if they moved forward with their capital campaign to improve the church, the diocese would not attempt to lay a claim to it.
Since most of the present value of the property is a result of the considerable contributions of church members to that campaign, I think you can rest assured that the wishes of the majority of the contributors have indeed been respected.
this loss removes the fear of litigation from those who might seek to leave TEC and keep the property for which their forebears paid and they have maintained.
How?
I would think that if the decision to depart were unanimous, particularly in a very young church where there is no need to sort out the contributions of past generations, there might be a rational basis for an offer to the church authorities to transfer title based on some time-line analysis of where contributions have originated over the life of the church. It doesn’t work very well in an older church (like some of the Virginia churches), or in circumstances where the votes are not unanimous.
#2 & #6:
That’s precisely why these disputes should not be in the courts (never mind St. Paul’s admonitions — lol). Too many people on both sides seem to want to work things out. It is only the extremes of both sides that seem to be angling for a “winner take all” victory. For TEC to seek attorneys fees from the Vestry members, rectors, etc was simply an attempt to be punitive and cause fear in any others that may be considering the same actions. It is a perfectly legal strategy, but one has to wonder whether it was at all charitable. And let’s face it, in many states, this could have been avoided had bishops come clean about the Dennis Canon and instructed/asked parishes to re-title their churches almost three decades ago. Then, this property fight could have been carried out without the emotional baggage.
#7: I would agree. It is much harder to sort out property issues in churches where the major of the contributions have been made by past members whose views about the current direction of their Church can only be inferred from one’s own perspective.
However this is, of course, a two-way street. Which is why, as Sarah has indicated, if we are going to have property disputes which (apparently) cannot be settled amicably, we may have little choice but to submit them to another authority, and let the chips fall as they will.
NO. 9: isn’t the cleanest, tidiest (from a legal, ethical, theological perspective) approach one in which those who want to leave, leave, and not purport to take buildings and accounts with them? Under that framework, there would be no lawsuits and resources would at least be kept within one or the other of the Christian camps, as opposed to going to law firms of unknowable, unquantifiable spiritual orientation.
#10 both camps are not necessarily Christian. Were they, there would not be lawsuits, which are in explicit disregard of scripture (1 Corinthians 6:1-11).
Just try telling that to Schori and Company, and see how far it gets you!
#10. As I said, this is a two-way street. One could equally argue that “the cleanest, tidiest (from a legal, ethical, theological) approach” would be to let those who paid for the buildings keep them.
But “those who paid for the buildings” are on both sides of the issue, Robert. And, in most cases, there are a great many who “paid for the buildings” who are dead and who have no opinion, as far as we can discern, on these issues one way or the other.
Just got back from the Anglican Men’s Weekend (which was fantastic). They announced this ruling there. Several of the attendees were those facing the million dollar losses. Needless to say it was a big victory for them, personally.
The issue was that the diocese was claiming the appeal was “frivolous.” The judge was not sympathetic, to say the least, with the diocese’s claim. “How can an appeal that generates a 70 page ruling be frivolous?”, he asked Bruno’s lawyer who had no answer but stammering. With that, he tossed out the obvious attempt to bully these people.
BTW#1, they announced that ABp-designate will be the featured speaker next year for the Anglican Men’s retreat.
BTW #1, it is time for there to be an Eastern (or ADV) Anglican Men’s retreat and Midwest Anglican Men’s retreat, etc. In particular, these are great venues for orthodox in America to meet with leaders of Global South and both are enriched.
Hey! Let’s not forget those of us out West! We’re in this too!
NoVA Scout: Did I not agree with you in my #9? That is precisely the point. In those situations, there is no clean, tidy solution. Would you prefer we settle it on a coin toss?
Robert A: I didn’t mean to be disputatious. Again, my preference would be that those who depart, depart. After we sort out who has departed and who remains, the issue of property can be addressed over a period of years in a number of swaps, trades, buy-outs that will eventually get the physical/real property into the hands of those who can best support and maintain it.