Read it all noting especially the eleven page pdf at the bottom which quotes the Motion documents in full.
TEC Files Motion In Virginia Seeking Pre-judgment Interest on Anglican Parish accounts
Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, * Christian Life / Church Life, * Culture-Watch, * Economics, Politics, CANA, Corporations/Corporate Life, Economy, Episcopal Church (TEC), Ethics / Moral Theology, Law & Legal Issues, Parish Ministry, Pastoral Theology, Stewardship, TEC Conflicts, TEC Conflicts: Virginia, TEC Departing Parishes, Theology
This is just the beginning. After Judge Bellows issues his final order, written by the Diocese of Virginia lawyers, Bishop Shannon Johnston will quickly file charges holding the Rectors and Vestries of the departing congregations in contempt of the court order, just like in Georgia. The Episcopalian playbook is quite clear on this. Let the reader understand. IMHO.
It seem predicatable and consistent with conservative views of property rights and the rule of law that if people who simply lay claim to property are later found to have been in error, they should make restitution, including some provision for a calculation of interest on their unlawful use of the property. The deveil, of course, is in the details. Mr. Haley may be correct that the calculus could fairly be determined to run from the date the Cpmmonwealth’s Supreme Court sorted things out. On the other hand, the Occupy group did have the use of the accounts and property for more than three years before that decision. It is relatively routine in the law to assign a value to that sort of windfall gain.
NoVA Scout,
You do realize that when one talks about “unlawful use of property” in this context, we’re speaking of outreach and mission? The parishes aren’t turning a profit and distributing it to shareholders. Furthermore, while they’ve been in place the Anglican congregations have maintained the properties that they currently occupy. For the Diocese of Virginia to make a claim to interest, beyond what non-segregated accounts have generated since 2006, is little short of extortion.
For either side to accuse the other of “theft” in this situation is misplaced. We have to accept – in the absence of evidence to the contrary – that both sides went into this believing in the validity of their case and accepted the intervention of the court in good faith. The court has now ruled (absent yet another appeal), but the Diocese of Virginia now seems intent on inflicting damage on its opponents for its own sake.
Well the Diocese smells blood in the water. Remember the goal always was not only the recovery of the property but the destruction of the congregations that defied TEC. If you financially ruin them maybe you can strangle ACNA in that area and prevent them from opening new church plants and competing with TEC.
It also makes a powerful lesson to anyone who contemplates keeping the property they bought and maintained without a penny from TEC and the Diocese.
JB – I would think it a reasonable and non-controversial position that any resolution would be fair enough (although not required by law) to allow the occupying groups to offset contributions to maintenance and upkeep against the fair rental value of the occupied properties for the same period. The judge made clear that after a fixed date a few weeks into the occupation that the CANA congregations revenues are theirs. However, it is an utterly unremarkable concept that interest would be due on the accounts as they existed at the time of the takeover running forward to the date of their return. I have not seen the term “theft” bandied about in this context, but the term “error” seems accurate to describe what appeared even before the events of late 2006, to be a very radical, unprecedented assertion of control over church property by parishioners who had (presumably for the best of reasons) decided to reaffiliate with another group.
According to the discussion on the Curmudgeon’s [url=http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2012/02/diocese-of-virginia-is-emperor-without.html]post[/url] (see the comments) there is a 6% rate fixed by statute for prejudgment interest, a rate that would exceed anything that could have been obtained in the present climate.
If sustained, would that not be a punitive award?
Furthermore, is it really reasonable – especially in the case of those congregations that had no remnant TEC congregation – to expect them to do nothing except building maintenance with existing funds while the cases went forward? If CANA had a for-profit arm, that argument might make some sense, but – as far as I know – it doesn’t.
RE: “For either side to accuse the other of “theft†in this situation is misplaced. We have to accept – in the absence of evidence to the contrary – that both sides went into this believing in the validity of their case and accepted the intervention of the court in good faith.”
No, not misplaced at all. Legalized theft is still theft and “unconscious” theft is still theft as well, since much of sin is “unconscious.” We’ve already discussed this on the other thread, so I’m not attempting to convince Jeremy Bonner. Just reasserting my points again.
RE: “. . . but the Diocese of Virginia now seems intent on inflicting damage on its opponents for its own sake.”
Yes — but the Diocese of Virginia is desperate. Desperate for money, and of course full of hatred and bitterness with their competition. This publicity is all to the good for Christians and the secular world to take note of.
I don’t think that the Episcopal Diocese will succeed in ultimately inflicting real damage on its competition, which it is desperate to stamp out. But every drop of negative publicity it manages to eke out of the win makes it better and better for those who recognize that the Diocese preaches a faux gospel and should have as much bad publicity as possible.
Just think of all the Episcopalians and Anglicans that T19 informs!