The Supreme Court of South Carolina has resolved a long-running dispute between All Saints Church, Pawleys Island, and the Diocese of South Carolina. In a unanimous ruling written by Chief Justice Jean Hoefer Toal, the court said that the Episcopal Church’s Dennis Canon does not apply to the congregation, which was founded before the Episcopal Church.
“It is an axiomatic principle of law that a person or entity must hold title to property in order to declare that it is held in trust for the benefit of another or transfer legal title to one person for the benefit of another,” the court ruled. “The diocese did not, at the time it recorded the 2000 notice, have any interest in the congregation’s property.”
It is not yet clear whether the Episcopal Church will appeal the decision. “My understanding is that the legal team is currently reviewing the ruling,” said Neva Rae Fox, the Episcopal Church’s public affairs officer.
For those of you following the thread on this from the local paper yesterday, they did run a correction today on page A2 noting that the quote was from Allan Haley not yours truly. I cannot find the correction, however, on the website.
Its widest meaning, I think is that property in South Carolina cannot be used as a threat to enforce the views of a prevailing larger group within a denomination.
To be frank, ECUSA [TEC] has a problem with “axiomatic principles.” It refuses to be bound to authority of any kind and just wants to make it up as it goes along. This is why Bp. Bennison’s claim that “We wrote [it]… we can re-write it” is the ethos of the modern Episcopal Church.
The Diocese, per this decision, failed to do due diligence in enforcing its interpretation of property policy. Each parish should have been required, individually, to create a trust that transferred ownership to the Diocese and TEC. Sloppy legal work informing the Dennis Canon may be fatal to its effectiveness in many states.
One hopes this goes all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court; the issues it raises are intrinsically interesting and could have wide implications. Just the kind of thing they like.
I’m not convinced the impact is going to be that great. It is a precedent against the Dennis Canon, insofar as it states that it is improper for an outside corporation (i.e. Diocese or TEC) to declare a trust when such trust is not specified on the deed. I can’t just go and claim a trust over my neighbors’ (or in this case a relative’s) house without their consent. But the particular circumstances of All Saints are just that, particular. Most parishes do not pre-date the founding of DFMS-PECUSA, nor were they deeded in trust to the inhabitants of their particular geographic area.
Truth be told I cannot help but agree with Dale Rye’s concern. Out West many parishes are deeded to “the Vestry and Wardens”. By that principle of law any given Vestry could dispose of property however they pleased. As much as I sympathize with the departing dioceses and parishes being sued by TEC, I cannot get over the suspicion that we would all feel differently if it was liberals trying to take Episcopal property in order to join the Unitarians, or the Metropolitan Community Church, or forming their own liberal nirvana.
[blockquote] I cannot get over the suspicion that we would all feel differently if it was liberals trying to take Episcopal property in order to join the Unitarians, or the Metropolitan Community Church, or forming their own liberal nirvana. [/blockquote]
#5 I could be wrong, but isn’t this exactly what TEC is doing? They are taking the property from those who actually paid for it to use in Universalist worship. (Jesus is a way. All roads lead to God. And so on.
Despicable! (As Daffy Duck used to say.)
In Hoc Signo Vinces,
NW Bob
Perhaps, like Christ, he could rule by love.
No – I think conservatives have been on the receiving end enougth to think that if an overwhelmingly liberal parish decided to depart we would wish them well. I would send a gift if Mass. were to seceed.
“How is a bishop to enforce use of the authorized liturgy when the highest court in the state has stated that he is powerless to control a local congregation?â€
I didn’t read all of Dale’s statement, but this statement has nothing to do with the SC S. Ct’s decision. The court expressly held that it was not expressing any opinions regarding theology or inner workings of the church hierchy. The only issue was property of the local church, and neutral principals of civil law would be applied to that. The court was very specific that it would not get into the matters Dale makes his hyperbolic statement about. So I don’t see that as an issue, other than as a strawman attack on the court’s opinion.