Surprisingly, the court’s decision to grant the motion is no longer the bad piece of news it would have been had it happened on February 25, or shortly thereafter. I write this post immediately after receiving word of the court’s ruling, in order to forestall the impact of the trumpet-blaring from Bishop Lamb, his supporters, and the Episcoleft blogworld that will now inevitably follow.
The reason why the ruling is not bad news for the defendants any longer is quite simple: the case itself has moved on. The parties are no longer concerned with the second amended complaint, which was the subject of the court’s ruling. The plaintiffs have now filed, and the Schofield defendants have now answered, their fourth amended complaint in this case. That fourth amended complaint contains whole new theories about the alleged collusion between the various defendants (including the Bishop’s law firm) to remove property from the Episcopal Church (USA) and its allegedly still-existing diocese.
A motion for summary adjudication of a single cause of action, just like a motion for summary judgment on an entire complaint, is framed by the pleadings that are at issue in the case — meaning the most current pleadings. It is, therefore, in my view a meaningless act to grant adjudication with regard to the second amended complaint, since it is no longer the operative pleading.
We still have hope here in San Joaquin. What ever God’s will is we will walk in it.
Looks like A.S. Haley is trying to infringe on TEC’s trademarked “All Is Well.”
We are praying for you in Fort Worth.
It is possible that your analysis may be correct, but, with all due respect, it also may be stretching and raise false expectations for folks in San Joaquin. At the very least it appears that for purposes of this case, the court has determined that Bishop Schofield is not the head of the trust etc. and that the funds and other assets were improperly transferred. I don’t see the court changing that ruling. The cases cited all involved amendments that changed the causes of action upon which the rulings had been based and the cause of action for declaratory relief has not changed in the amended pleadings. Honestly, the odds of an appellate court hearing an interlocutory appeal are slim; the trial court could simply re-issue the same ruling on the basis of the amended complaint. While this ruling is certainly not dispositive, it is no doubt a real set back and will likely shape the rest of the litigation..
Daniel271, it appears the court may have proceeded as follows:
[i]Plaintiffs[/i]: The Episcopal Church is hierarchical, and here is our expert witness, Dr. Mullin, to prove that statement.
[i]Defendants[/i]: Not so fast. Here is our expert witness who says the Church is [i]not[/i] hierarchical.
[i]The Court[/i]: I rule that the defendants are trying to offer evidence on an issue of law. I shall therefore exclude the defendants’ evidence from consideration, and find on the basis of the plaintiffs’ evidence that the Church is hierarchical as a matter of law.
Do you see anything wrong with that approach? Is that the way courts are supposed to proceed — keep out all of the defendants’ evidence, and then rule for the plaintiffs based on their evidence?
Because no matter how you spin it, there has been no prior court decision in California or elsewhere finding that The Church is hierarchical with respect to one of its dioceses, as opposed to the relationship between a diocese and one of its parishes. So there was no “law” from which the Court could find, as a matter of law, that the Church was hierarchical in its relationship to dioceses. There was only the plaintiffs’ expert evidence — and only if you excluded the defendants’ evidence to the contrary.
Sure, the appellate court does not have to step in at this point; it can decide it will wait until the whole case is over. But what a waste of time and resources to have the parties take the case to trial, then take an appeal from the final judgment, only to find on appeal that the Court erred at the very beginning by arbitrarily favoring one side’s evidence over the other’s.
AlfredNorth-Good luck with that argument. I sure wouldn’t bet my money on it though. I’d say the handwriting’s on the wall in this litigation. Maybe Fort Worth and Pittsburgh can do a better job..
Perhaps it might help to take note of the standard of review for summary adjudications in California:
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review summary adjudication de novo. (Hersant v. Department of Social Services (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 997, 1001.) In doing so, we “consider[] all the evidence set forth in the moving and opposition papers except that to which objections have been made and sustained. [Citation.]†(Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334.) We accept as undisputed fact only those portions of the moving party’s evidence that are uncontradicted by the opposing party. (Hersant v. Department of Social Services, supra, at p. 1001.) Additionally, we strictly construe the moving party’s evidence and liberally construe the opposing party’s evidence. (Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 838.)
If Daniel271, you understand that, then you understand why this case will be reversed on appeal.
The judge is NOT permitted to rule as “inadmissible” the opposing parties evidence. He MUST consider it. Furthermore, review is de novo. In other words, the trial judges opinion doesnt count.
Here in Texas, we have an even better standard of review:
In a summary judgment setting, the court must take as true all evidence favorable to the nonmovant, indulge every reasonable inference favorable to the nonmovant, and resolve any doubts in the nonmovant’s favor. Valence Operating Co v. Dorsett, 164 SW 3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005).
So you might want to think, Daniel271, about your statements again.
Comments from Messrs. North and TexasJoe may ultimately prove correct procedurally, but those who think the cause of departing parishes is enhanced by efforts to control property on exit should realize that these efforts (at least outside Virginia where there is a unique state law that may or may not pass constitutional muster) thus far have fared poorly. The time and resources would have been better spent building new churches and waiting to see if the remaining congregations could sustain ownership of the old properties. In time, that latter issue would be resolved. Just as America’s birth defect was slavery, the formation of new orthodox Anglican congregations in America will bear as its birth defect these intense efforts to hang onto property occupied before they elected to depart. I have to think that a lot of the motivation (aside from the sheer inconvenience of moving and the expense of building) is that many people who may not have fully formed views on the issues that caused separation want to continue to worship where they have worshipped for years and will stay with the departing congregation if it controls the site where they have traditionally worshipped.
Let us be clear…this is not a departing congregation. It is a diocese that followed its canons and voted to leave. Check out the canons of the EC how a Diocese becomes a part of the EC. It is a majority vote and voluntary decision. Once made there they can decide to leave. There is nothing to stop such a decision in the Canons. Churches leaving dioceses and dioceses leaving a denomination are two different things.
Creighton (#8),
[blockquote]
… Check out the canons of the EC how a Diocese becomes a part of the EC. It is a majority vote and voluntary decision. Once made there they can decide to leave. There is nothing to stop such a decision in the Canons. …
[/blockquote]
Beg to differ.
Under the Constitution at Article V, Section 1, a diocese-in-formation must, in its constitution, execute an act of unqualified accession to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church.
The meaning of [i]unqualified accession[/i] is that, once in union with General Convention, i.e., The Episcopal Church, there is no right to withdraw.
Umm, unless I miss my guess, the Episcopal Church is a [i]voluntary association of dioceses,[/i] and since the Church was organized in this manner in 1789, any diocese has the right to withdraw its [i]voluntary association[/i] with other dioceses of the [i]umbrella association[/i] now called the Episcopal Church. General Convention has now inferred that TEC is an hierarchical Church from the top down, while their constitution and canons clearly show otherwise. Authority comes from the bishops and their dioceses, and [i]not[/i] from General Convention, as they would have everyone believe. We in the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin were perfectly within our rights in leaving TEC for the Province of the Southern Cone.
Cennydd (#10),
So you left with the organization that was formerly the Diocese of San Joaquin.
Is ACNA an umbrella association?
Anyway, take a look at the Constitution and Canons (as of the end of GC 2006):
[url=”http://www.episcopalarchives.org/e-archives/canons/CandC_FINAL_11.29.2006.pdf”]http://www.episcopalarchives.org/e-archives/canons/CandC_FINAL_11.29.2006.pdf[/url]
Creighton: It’s not clear to me that the distinction between a diocese purporting to withdraw and individual parishes or parishioners withdrawing makes a legal difference with regard to the disposition of property. That is the question that is playing out around the country, most immediately in California. But whether the circumstance be individuals departing or dioceses purporting to depart, my sentiments remain constant -it is a bad idea to attempt to take property in such a move. Clinging to property sends mixed signals as to motivation, it may unduly influence decisions about staying or leaving by individuals who are not deeply invested in the theological disagreements, it works inequities on those who do not choose to leave, it squanders resources of all parties, and it distracts from spiritual pursuits. Obviously, that’s just one man’s opinion, but whether we’re talking about a diocese or a parish or a single Christian in the pews is not particularly relevant to my viewpoint.
No, stabill, I didn’t. I left with the diocese which is [b]still[/b] the Diocese of San Joaquin: the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin in the Anglican Church in the Province of the Southern Cone of the Americas, which diocese is a founding member of the Anglican Church in North America, and whose bishop, +John-David Schofield, SSC, has been recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury as a bishop IN GOOD STANDING of the Anglican Communion.
I trust that my explanation is clear enough, is it not? Or would you prefer to take the matter up with Archbishops Williams, Duncan and Venables?
And I feel compelled to ask you, stabill, the following question:
What do you suppose the Episcopal Church’s reaction would be if the Church of England’s House of Bishops decide to formally recognize the Anglican Church of America as the 39th province of the Anglican Communion?
Daniel271, “NoVA Scout”, and stabill are those that A. S. Haley said would be out trumpeting their “victory”. To find fully that the defendants evidence is inadmissible will likely be the undoing of this action by the court as Mr. Haley said. Probably not one of the three revisionists is a lawyer, lest wise a lawyer in the State of California. Mr. Haley is a lawyer in the State of California. I would trust his opinions over this group of commenters.
DITTO!
stabill:
Perhaps you need to check the dictionary:
[blockquote]
Main Entry: ac·cede
Pronunciation: ak-‘sEd, ik-
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Forms: ac·ced·ed; ac·ced·ing
1 a : to become a party (as to an agreement) by associating oneself with others
“accede.” Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law. Merriam-Webster, Inc. 25 Jul. 2009..
[/blockquote]
As you can see, a party to an agreement can stop being a party to the agreement at any time by disassociating from the others. Thats the whole purpose by using the word [i]accede[/i].
BillB: I am not “trumpeting” anything, do not regard the decision as a “victory”, am an orthodox devotee of the WWAC, and am certainly not a revisionist in any sense. I am extremely concerned about the actions of the most recent General Convention. I simply think the position of departing Episcopalians (or Anglicans, if you prefer) is very much tainted and compromised by these efforts to retain property.
I enjoy Mr. Haley’s musings. He is a fellow of great intellect and erudition. He may ultimately prove correct in his legal analysis. So far, however, his track record, as opposed to the inner workings of his mind, is not particularly impressive. It is becoming more plausible that, as this sorry intra-Christian strife winds its way through the secular courts, very few jurists will prove themselves as insightful and intelligent as Mr. A. S. Haley. If so, all of us will then objectively call the result a loss for the departing groups. And thousands of Anglicans/Episcopalians will be sitting in the ashes of legal waste at the end of the experience, with millions of dollars that could have been spent on missions or founding new churches having migrated outside the Christian community.
I could go on and on about our efforts to retain our properties ad nauseam, but the issue will eventually be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. I have great respect for Mr Haley’s legal expertise and his written opinions, and I’m sure we’ll hear much more from him as the lawsuits proceed throught the courts.
If I were Schori and Company, I wouldn’t count on emerging victorious from this sad business. If the Church of England’s House of Bishops recognize the Anglican Church of North America as the 39th province of the Anglican Communion, this would put TEC’s standing as the sole Anglican communion presence in this country in a different light, and in my opinion, it could call their claim of hierarchy into serious question as far as the courts are concerned. This is why ++Jefferts Schori and Bonnie Anderson sent their letters concerning Resolutions D025 and B033 to ++Rowan Williams this past week. They have good reason to worry.
BillB..
Like NoVa Scout, I don’t see how my comment was “trumpeting” anything. I was just commenting on the featured story and said that I thought the Haley analysis was overly optimistic and consider it ill-advised in litigation to look only at the strengths of one’s case and ignore the weaknesses. I don’t want to get into a back and forth since the point of the comments, I thought, was to comment on the featured piece–not attack other commenters just because you don’t like what they say. So this is my last post on this thread .
And…contrary to the assumptions of you, Texas Joe and Cennydd, I am indeed a lawyer in California. And, having taught at a major law school, written reference texts on summary judgments, and prepared and argued countless motions for summary judgment, I’m quite comfortable with my knowledge base thank you.
FWIW, BillB, I also am a lawyer who has practiced in California (although I no longer live there and my work there now is in the federal, as opposed to state courts). Cennydd: I agree that the recent GC made more likely the result that ACNA will receive recognition from the Church of England. Another reason that the departure of many conservative voices from the Episcopal Church is lamentable and additional evidence that the delegates to Anaheim are unable to think clearly on the issues of human sexuality and their relationship to the unity of the Church. However, I very much doubt that ACNA’s recognition by Canterbury, if it happens, would change the secular legal outcome in these jurisdictions where dioceses purport to withdraw from ECUSA.
BillB (#15),
I was not trumpeting anything (nor do I think there is anything to trumpet), but I was merely responding to the incorrect claim that nothing in the Constitution and Canons prevents a diocese from withdrawing.
21. The delegates to the recent General Convention may have been “unable to think clearly,” but the liberal leadership certainly were able to do so, and they’ve been trumpeting their success…..and in fact, they were so smug that they predicted it.
If I were Schori and Company, I wouldn’t count on success. I’m no attorney, of course, but I do know lying and subterfuge when I see them, and TEC has been practicing them for years. This fact is well known to the rest of the Anglican Communion, and I would be so bold as to say, the rest of Christianity in general. The often-quoted statement about lying to the people which is attributed to President Lincoln certainly applies here.
Calm down, Cennydd. This is a tragedy in the Christian family, not a political campaign.