In California, your church likely would lose its property. In South Carolina, however, your church is safe. That’s because the California Supreme Court in January and the South Carolina Supreme Court in September chose opposing methods for their respective lower courts to use in judging church property disputes. (Declared the South Carolina court: “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.”)
The U.S. Supreme Court is partly to blame for the confusion. Traditionally, property matters are a state, not federal, legal matter. Many states historically allowed an exception to laws governing property. They deferred instead to rules set by certain “hierarchical” denominations in property issues of their member churches. As the 20th century deepened, scattered courts became more willing to listen to appeals of congregations deprived of their property and to apply “neutral principles” of state law in resolving disputes. In Jones v. Wolf in 1979, the U.S. Supreme Court said courts were free to use “either approach: deference to the hierarchy” or neutral principles of law.
It’s not that simple. The state enforces property ownership through state power. Is the state willing to allow the private settlement of property issues by force of arms?
I think this whole matter is simple: Who’s name is on the deed of the property? Period, not wrangling or getting into discussions of hierarchical/congregational theology.
#2 I agree. It was save a great deal of $.
The photo in the “free peek” bait for the full article looks like it may be a corner view of Saint James Anglican, Newport Beach, California.
The 1st Amendment Free Exercise clause is not a compelling Constitutional Argument when set against both the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments. BTW, individuals and parishes have 1st Amendment rights also. There are many mainline denominations, like TEC, that wields the Free Exercise Clause as though it was written for them, and its not. The bottom line is that you cannot pass a rule to claim ownership of property that you never paid for, sustained or maintained and that you do not hold “legal” title. The whole “fiduciary duty” thing is pure tripe when you never paid a mortgage. I am looking forward to the day when the SCOTUS takes on this issue.