Christ Church Episcopal may be back home in its Johnson Square building, but squabbling over church property continues.
The Episcopal Diocese of Georgia and Christ Church Episcopal on Monday asked Chatham County Superior Court Chief Judge Michael Karpf to hold the Rev. Marcus Robertson and Christ Church Savannah in contempt of court.
They argue Robertson and Christ Church Savannah have failed to comply with a court order to return a $2 million endowment fund and other property after the two congregations agreed to the return of the historic Johnson Square property in December.
This will happen in Virginia as well.
Either the departing group has complied with the order or not. This probably is not very complicated. If they have complied and returned the property, and are not using the church name or the internet domain, I don’t think the departing group should be at all concerned.
It will depend on the particular circumstances. For example, the judge in Virginia ruled that the Anglican congregation was entitled to keep all donations and tithes etc received since the split.
The article says that Christ Church Savannah is considering applying for certiorari from USSC. As I understand it, they can apply for a stay of the judgment in the meantime, and it looks like they will have to do just that if they want the status quo preserved. No doubt their attorneys will sort it out. But at least TEC is being made to wait longer, and this issue is being kept in the public eye.
My comment at #3 was in answer to #1
[blockquote]As I understand it, they can apply for a stay of the judgment in the meantime, and it looks like they will have to do just that if they want the status quo preserved.[/blockquote]
To get an order staying the judgment, they will probably have to post bond. Post judgement interest should be running, and it will dramatically exceed what the congregation can earn on the funds they are holding as they await the decision from the SCOTUS on their petition. The possibility of a grant of certiorari in a case where the state’s highest court has reached a decision based on state property law is remote.
[blockquote] “The possibility of a grant of certiorari in a case where the state’s highest court has reached a decision based on state property law is remote.” [/blockquote]
The possibility of a grant of certiorari in any case is remote. Our High Court is similar. I expect that most decisions on state property law would only have relevance within that state, and for that reason USSC would be disinterested in reviewing them. But that doesn’t mean that a petition cannot succeed in any particular case, particularly where essentially the same facts are being litigated in many States at the same time.
[blockquote] “To get an order staying the judgment, they will probably have to post bond. Post judgement interest should be running, and it will dramatically exceed what the congregation can earn on the funds they are holding as they await the decision from the SCOTUS on their petition.” [/blockquote]
I suspect that IF the USSC considers that there is a question of sufficient importance to merit review, any bond requirement will be framed in a way that is possible for the congregations to meet.
No 6 – for the federal Supreme Court of the United States to take an issue out of the state courts, one must establish that federal constitutional rights are implicated. That is extremely unlikely in the context of the several state resolutions to date of disputes arising from the occupation of one-time Episcopal property by departing parishioners These cases, thsu far, are largely being disposed of under state law interpretations and principles. Our federal courts will simply stand back unless clear federal rights are implicated. It really doesn’t matter how “important” subjective viewers consider the issues. It has to be something that implicates federally protected rights.
[blockquote] “It really doesn’t matter how “important†subjective viewers consider the issues.” [/blockquote]
Indeed. And since nobody has suggested that it does, your post is irrelevant.
[blockquote]But that doesn’t mean that a petition cannot succeed in any particular case, particularly where essentially the same facts are being litigated in many States at the same time. [/blockquote]
I’m not sure I understand your point here. The uniqueness of this case you have identified is an illusion generated by your interest. Essentially the same set of facts are being litigated in multiple states every day; and if the issue is one of state law, there may in fact be different results in different states.
If for example you were very interested in product liability cases you might question whether the SCOTUS should intervene because thousands of identical cases have been filed against Toyota in 50 different states, or from the other side you might think the Supreme Court should intervene, because GMAC has sued thousands of people for defaulting on identical car leases in 50 states.
[blockquote] “I’m not sure I understand your point here. The uniqueness of this case you have identified is an illusion generated by your interest.” [/blockquote]
Not at all. Rather, the lack of uniqueness which you have identified is an illusion generated by your interest.
Anyone who thinks that he can infallibly predict what cases USSC will choose to accept is deluded.
[blockquote] “If for example you were very interested in product liability cases you might question whether …” [/blockquote]
Its not a matter of what I might question nor of what you might try to convince yourself of. Its a matter of what USSC does in a particular case. You are essentially trying to argue that there is NO WAY that the USSC will take this case, and that is rubbish. There is a very low chance that USSC will take this case (if a petition is in fact lodged), but that applies to every case in existence.
Sorry, but I am not trying to argue there is no way the USSC will take this case. I said the possibility was remote, not impossible; which is true.
My point was I do not understand your agument that this case somehow has a better chance of being selected because ” the same facts are being litigated in many States at the same time.” I simply pointed out that is not even remotely unique in litigation. That in fact, there are hundreds of thousands of cases where the exact same issues are being litigated in many states at the same time.
If the USSC grants cert in this case, it will be because it sees a Constitutional Issue, not because the same facts are being litigated in several states at the same time.
[blockquote] “Sorry, but I am not trying to argue there is no way the USSC will take this case. I said the possibility was remote, not impossible; which is true.” [/blockquote]
If you mean “remote” in the sense that every case in the USA’s chance of being granted cert. is remote (even if jurisdiciton exists), then I agree.
[blockquote] “My point was I do not understand your agument that this case somehow has a better chance of being selected because †the same facts are being litigated in many States at the same time.— [/blockquote]
Since that was not my point, you can save the effort. You asserted that this case had less chance of being selected because it was ä “decision based on state property law”. That is obviously incorrect as far as jurisdiction goes – there is either a basis for 1257 or there isn’t (and I express no opinion on that). I therefore assumed that you were talking about the prospects of a case in which jurisdiction existed attracting sufficient interest from four judges to be granted cert., and I pointed out that there is no intrinsic reason why such a decision would be less likely to get it. I agree that where the outcome of an appeal is only going to be relevant within one state, it is in practical terms less likely to be granted cert., but that would not necessarily be the case here.
Michael, I appreciate your scholarship greatly and have learned a great deal from you. But on U.S. federal jurisprudence, you need to give us a little more room. The Virginia and Georgia cases are, at present, very much wrapped up in state-level swaddling clothes and are not presenting as cases that have federal implications. Lawyers watching cases move up through our parallel state and federal systems have a way of spotting a case with “legs.” Thus far, these cases do not have “legs.” I am thinking that if any case from these church property disputes gets into the federal system, it will come from either Texas or California. But it is entirely too early to tell. Virginia and Georgia are done, I think. Obviously, I could be wrong, and the CANA groups in Virginia could still appeal. But my guess is that, if their lawyers have their wits about them, any appeal would be merely tactical – i.e., it would be designed to buy time and leverage in negotiations for an exit. As it stands now, this case can’t get in the door of a federal court.
NovA Scout, please note what I wrote in my posts, and what I did not write. I have given plenty of room for matters on which I explicitly “express no opinion”.