While a number of lawsuits between dioceses and parishes have gone to state supreme courts, with the diocese prevailing in many of them, in South Carolina the state supreme court ruled the other way and held the church’s national property rules, called the Dennis Canon, were of no legal effect in South Carolina. In other words, if a parish has clear title to its property in South Carolina, it can take it with it if it leaves its diocese or denomination. Omitting this crucial legal precedent in the story was most unfortunate.
It should also be added that the appellate courts have not adjudicated the issue of whether a diocese may withdraw from the national church. Attorneys for the national church have argued the legal precedents from outside South Carolina governing the relationship of the parish to the diocese should govern the relationship of the diocese to the national church. The diocese’s lawyers in South Carolina have argued this relationship is not comparable.
One might also add, contrary to the assertion in the article about declining membership, that until these lawsuits erupted the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina was one of the few Episcopal diocese to see a growth in membership over the past decade.
It was a very sloppy and poorly written article; good that Conger took the time to point out the errors. Another oddity is the reference to “Martin Nussbaum, a Colorado specialist in church property law who isn’t involved in the South Carolina matter”. Mr. Nussbaum may not be involved in South Carolina, but he is a TEC lawyer, representing some TEC diocese. I think that quote misrepresents him as disinterested. Not Mr. Nussbaum’s fault, probably, but that of the writer and editors.