A years-long, multimillion-dollar land battle between the Episcopal Church in Virginia and conservatives who broke away from the denomination is headed back into court.
The Virginia Supreme Court said Wednesday that it would hear an appeal by the Episcopal diocese of Virginia and the national church, which lost in Fairfax District Court last year.
A district court judge had sided with nine conservative Virginia congregations whose members were angry about the liberal approach the church takes toward several issues including whether the Bible can be read literally and whether gays and lesbians should be accorded the same rights as heterosexuals (in marriage and access to clerical positions, among other things). Conservative congregants voted to leave the Episcopal Church, take millions of dollars in real estate assets and join another, more like-minded branch of the Anglican Communion.
It was only to be expected that this important case goes to the Virginia Supreme Court as it could affect hundreds more properties.
The law is clear that a hierarchical denomination has plenty of options to protect its polity but if it chooses to use local trustees then VA law deems them to be representatives of the congregation.
In the meantime we are planting congregations!
http://www.churchoftheword.net
http://manassas-anglican.blogspot.com/
If the law were that clear, there wouldn’t be litigation at this point. It’s not like there is a profusion of cases under this statute since 1867.
Meanwhile, the Diocese of Virginia pursues property while CANA seeks to save souls.
Which of the two are carrying out the Great Commandment?
AnglicanFirst, 3, any evidence to back that up? And I’m sure that’s the tune you’d be singing if the trial court decisions had gone the other way.
The “nothing to see here” and “aren’t these people terrible for appealing” spin is quite stale at this point.
I think it deserves to be heard on appeal. It makes good sense for the VA Supreme Court to have the final word, in case these cases are reviewed by the US Supreme Court.
I wouldn’t expect much to change. The First Amendment Free Exercise/VA Statute 57-9 challenge is exceptionally weak because the only proof that TEC is hierarchical is its own trust clause (“We are hierarchical because we say we are and you courts have no business treading on internal matters”). I think judges generally like to hear from lawyers that they have no jurisdiction in certain matters, it a great legal strategy.
Its too bad that DioVA of TEC doesn’t have a few names on some of the deeds (like the Catholics and others) that would make the hierarchical claim more valid (speaking of no need for litigation). The Diocese has had since 150 years to get their names on the deeds and never got around to it. The reason they didn’t is that they would have had to provide funding or assume some liability. Like “real-live” hierarchical churches do.
Even in the unlikely event the VA Supreme Court would overturn 57-9. The case could still be won by the CANA parishes on neutral property rights alone. This ain’t California.
By saying “we’re planting congregations” I know #3 above is trying to say “we’re evangelizing” (with a sly imputation that by appealing TEC is more focused on litigation than winning souls) but as non lawyer I wonder how many “congregational” victories over the “hierarchal” TEC it will take before the ACNA (much less AMIA) churches realize they’ve just spend a few years trying to prove that the diocese must bow to the congregation? That’s all well and good until you plant a few churches (and call a few rectors) who find themselves crossways with the local bishop (WO comes to mind) and the Bishop wants to impose some Diocean consistency and order. The congregational genie is out of the bottle now…
My understanding is that the ACNA constitution expressly states that parish property belongs to the parish and not ACNA. So at the very least, they would have to amend their constitution to give parish property to the dioceses or ACNA. I would suspect that, with the lessons learned from the TEC experience, that would be a hard sell.
And I suspect we will also often hear the South Carolina Supreme Court’s view that it is a well known principle of law that in order to establish a property trust, you must actually own the property involved. In other words, if ACNA were to pass some sort of “Dennis Canon”, they had better make sure that they get their name on the deed. The Dennis Canon is dead in South Carolina. It is in trouble in Virginia and Texas.
Meanwhile TEC membership, average Sunday attendance and pledge and plate shrinks.
All is well.
This Judge made a solid decision and TEC faces an uphill fight.
RE: “If the law were that clear, there wouldn’t be litigation at this point.”
Oh dear.
That is obviously not a true legal principle at all. Litigation is rampant where laws are crystal clear. It is — rightly so — incredibly easy to institute lawsuits.
Dan (#6),
That was one of the issues that left me puzzled after the ACNA pre-convention meeting, as you can see from [url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com/2009/10/force-in-not-means-by-which-we-lead-or.html]my report[/url]. We’re so used to church discipline being abused that now we seem to want to go entirely in the opposite direction, but how do you make that work?
#9 Sarah has hit the mark. Judge Bellows found the law to be exceedingly clear and he has used it in a ruling that is exceedingly clear. The Virginia Atty. General filed an amicus brief stating the law is clear, constitutional and has been useful in resolving several disputes. About the only way the complaintents can have have hope is for the VA Supreme Court to find the law unconstitutional.
I have heard the reason the DioVA and TEC have been in such a confused state is their legal team was unaware of the division statute until it was brought forward by CANA as the basis for our claim to the property.
Will the Supreme Court find it unconstitutional? Who knows? Certainly it has stood the test of 150 years and a number of cases. Regardless of the outcome our church will be no less evangelical. Our efforts there are based on the Word. They are refreshing. And, they are producing growth in the size of the congregation. We have developed a plan for two services for Sundays in 2010, and if we have to build a new building in a new location it will be bigger.
I for one welcome the decision by the VA Supremes to hear the appeal. Without it, there would always be the specter of uncertainty about whether Judge Bellow’s ruling was secure or liable to possibly being overturned.
I think it’s entirely possible that some conservative congregations in VA are waiting for the state high court to make its ruling, before deciding to bolt TEC. I can easily think of a handful of them where that may well be the case. Once the state Supreme Court makes its final and decisive ruling, which I assume will find the unique VA division statute to be constitutional (the diocese and TEC bear a heavy burden of proof in order to overturn it), that could free a number of orthodox churches to break away without fear at last.
Thank God for that old arcane Division Statute!
David Handy+
CanaAnglican: My impression was that the statute has had little use since its first intended application to churches wishing to distance themselves from Yankee-affiliated denominations in the immediate post-Civil War period. Your comment indicates that it has been routinely upheld (or upheld with sufficient frequency to put its validity beyond dispute) over a century and a half against legal challenges. Is that what you intended to convey?
[Serial personal remarks in breach of T19 comment policy deleted by Elf – comments must address the thread topic and not other commenters and not be ad hominem]