While the trial judge erred in granting declaratory relief, the presiding justice went on to say, the court is not necessarily precluded from resolving the other causes of action.
Ardaiz explained:
“[C]ivil civil court jurisdiction is properly invoked to resolve issues concerning property transfers assertedly made by Schofield while he was the duly constituted Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin. Resolution of these issues involves consideration of both the powers invested in the bishop under the church law at the time he took those actions, and the powers of the bishop under state corporate, trust, and property law at the time he took these actions.”
Church law, he added, may be relevant to those issues to the extent it “may establish trust relationships and limit or expand corporate powers.”
Does this mean that there are not two Diocese of San Joaquin?
As I understand this decision, the court refused to decide who is the bishop and decided that neutral principles of property law will be used to decide who owns the property. Nothing more, nothing less. As usual the Curmudgeon has a great analysis at his blog.
I’m sure that California Property Law will apply here.