The Diocese of Virginia has just released a statement on the state of their lawsuits against the eleven Virginia Churches that followed the Protocol for Departing Churches and voted to separate from the Episcopal Church.
In their weekly Communique under the headline “Judge Sets Date for Trial,” the diocese states that “The Hon. Randy I. Bellows has set Oct. 6-30, 2008 for the second phase of the trial over ownership of Episcopal Church property.” The Diocese then asserts that “In this second phase The Diocese of Virginia and The Episcopal Church seek declaratory judgment regarding the property, a ruling that requires the CANA congregations to vacate Episcopal property, transfer of title and a full accounting of all property. ”
This is not true.
The judge has reserved trial dates this fall, but the judge has not yet ruled on the subject covered by those dates and won’t make a decision until after he rules on the 57-9 filings, some time after January 19, 2008….
I think the DioVA is a little presumptuous here. The judge stayed any discovery and has not decided the 57-9 case. If he decides for the CANA congregations then there is no need for a declaratory judgement hearing as the 57-9 statute specifically indicates that once the decision is made for the congregations and it is so entered in the court record book that is conclusive to ownership of the property. End of story. This trial would be a moot point if the judge should rule for the congregations. He did however set aside the time in case a trial is needed.
According to this: [blockquote]In this second phase The Diocese of Virginia and The Episcopal Church seek declaratory judgment regarding the property, a ruling that requires the CANA congregations to vacate Episcopal property, transfer of title and a full accounting of all property. [/blockquote]
If the diocese is seeing [b]transfer[/b] of title, then isn’t that an admission that the diocese doesn’t hold the title? If that’s the case, then isn’t it tacit admission that the diocese doesn’t own the property?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
I want to be sure I understand the error in the diocesan press release. Is it simply as Seminarian [#1] has stated: i.e., that no September trial will occur unless the diocese wins the current phase of the case?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Phil [#2]: If you hold property in trust for someone else, you hold legal title—one form of ownership. But the beneficiary of the trust also has ownership rights (“equitable” rights). Under some circumstances, such as breach of trust, the beneficiary can ask a court to compel the transfer of legal title. The beneficiary will then become the owner of record.
Here the diocese (as I understand it) concedes that the ADV parishes hold legal title to their property but argues that under the execrable Dennis Canon the parishes hold it in trust for the diocese and ECUSA.
If there is a trust, shouldn’t that fact be recorded on the title or shouldn’t there be some legal instrument recording the trust? Shouldn’t there be some form of legal paperwork or record that records the trust?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
details schmetails #4. If Gen Con decrees that the sun rises in the West, then it is so. Likewise with property matters…..
I wonder if my son’s boy scout troop can amend the by-laws and take my car if my son and I ever leave the troop? I better go read them carefully. Could TEC or DioVA can quarter bishops and clergy in my home without my consent?
#2. Phil,
As usual, you are right on the mark. Do you think TEC and DioVA believe these things their legal team makes up? I guess they must or else they would have lost confidence in their team by now. — Stan
“This is not true.”
What does truth have to do with anything in TEC these days?
The title to the properties in Virginia are held in trust for the congregations by court appointed trustees and the property is in the name of the congregations. This is an admission that the Diocese doesn’t own the property. Even if the case goes to a declaratory judgement trial then there will have to be an argument if the Diocese has rights to the property under implied trust of the Dennis Canon, which if you read the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia’s brief is not recognized in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Should be interesting.
seminarian and Phil Snyder, there’s no admission here. The title is held by trustees. The issue is who they’re trustees for. Sure, you could have a judgment in favor of the Diocese and not transfer title. But would the Diocese want all the same angry CANA people as trustees for it? I don’t think so. If the Diocese is going to win, they’re going to want to put their own people in as trustees. Hence, transfer of title.
BTW, there’s [url=http://www.thediocese.net/News_services/pressroom/newsrelease47.html]a new release up from the Diocese[/url]. Mostly about their opposition to the AG’s motion. Some interesting stuff in there about a past AG opinion.
3, yes, you have the “error” right. We’re well into mountain out of a molehill territory here.
Last paragraph of the press release from the Dio of VA website:
[blockquote] “We’re very concerned about this,†said Bishop Charlene Kammerer, Bishop of the Virginia Conference of the United Methodist Church. “Our polity, our constitution and our book of church law (The Discipline) make it very clear that all properties are held in trust for the denomination or annual conference. The Attorney General’s view strikes at the very heart of our constitution and our historic trust clause.â€[/blockquote]
Looks like there has been an outbreak of polity in the Methodist Church too!
Don’t the pro-hierarchy theorists get it? The U.S. Supreme Court in 1979 saw no conflict with the U.S. constitution when it said that the state (via its courts) could resolve church property disputes without deferring to denominational rules.
It’s worth repeating: no constitutional conflict, folks.
Incidentally, that opinion =preceded= the hastily crafted Dennis trust canon, which came in reaction to it.
w.w.
ww, have you read the decision you’re talking about? As the Diocese and TEC point out in their 3rd post-trial brief, it says 4 different times that even under neutral principles, a church’s rules get considered (and in some cases are the end of the story).
It’s interesting you stress “preceded”, because that cuts directly against the point you’re trying to make. The Jones v Wolf case said flat out that with a provision like that, the hierarchical church wins. That’s why the Dennis Canon and provisions like it in other churches were passed very quickly.
OK, my last comment was slightly harsher in tone than it should have been. Sorry ww. Supreme Court opinions aren’t models of clarity, especially with respect to the First Amendment. But, my point is that it is far from clear that Jones v Wolf is helpful for the breakaway folks.