Without going into every detail, today’s hearing was on a motion for summary judgment by plaintiffs (TEC and the Diocese) asking for immediate possession of all real and personal property of Christ Church and an accounting. The arguments centered on the disposition of church property cases by “neutral principles of law” as decided by the United States Supreme Court in Jones v. Wolf. TEC and the Diocese interpret Jones v. Wolf to read that in such a “neutral principles” case, where the governing documents of a hierarchical church are clear, they are decisive. Hence the 1979 Dennis Canon-which unilaterally imposed a trust interest in favor of TEC in the property of each local church-trumps all other principles and the property belongs to the Diocese and/or TEC.
Not so fast, said the Judge. Is this Dennis Canon “severable” from the rest of the TEC canons-including matters of doctrine into which the courts cannot inquire? Does the Dennis Canon trump Diocesan canons that cut in favor of Christ Church? In response to TEC’s argument that the Dennis Canon is merely a codification of a “common understanding and practice” that the property of the local church is held in trust for the denomination, Judge Karpf asked if a “mere understanding” not expressly within the governing documents is a neutral principle? What if the rules of procedure governing the passage of a canon by General Convention were violated? What about the unilateral nature of the Dennis Canon and the lack of notice to the local congregation?
Now it was Christ Church’s turn to argue against plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and in support of their cross motion for summary judgment against TEC and the Diocese. Counsel for Christ Church argued that the plaintiff’s interpretation of “neutral principles” in Jones v Wolf was seriously flawed, and that their arguments ignored both Georgia law and the unique nature of the 1789 Georgia legislature’s grant of property to Christ Church prior to the very existence of the Diocese of Georgia.
At least the Judge seemed to be asking the right questions. Seems like issues of fact exist – TEC will not like the 1979 GC being examined at length during depositions.
I find this question from the judge very interesting:
[blockquote]What if the rules of procedure governing the passage of a canon by General Convention were violated?[/blockquote]
Is he going to look into the question of whether or not the Dennis Canon ever was actually adopted? And, of course, Christ’s Church argues that the procedures required by New York state law were followed by TEC.
In any event it looks like this one is going to trial and the judge is no pushover.