Update: Explanation and Timeline.
(Please note for important background on this case please review the article there–KSH).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED,
1. The Plaintiffs are the owners of their real, personal and intellectual property.
2. The Defendants have no legal, beneficial or equitable interest in the Plaintiffs’ real, personal and intellectual property.
3. The Defendant TEC, also known as The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America and Defendant The Episcopal Church in South Carolina and their officers, agents, servants, employees, members, attorneys and any person in concert with or under their direction or control are permanently enjoined from using, assuming, or adopting in any way, directly or indirectly the names, styles, emblems or marks of the Plaintiff as hereinafter set out, or any names, styles, emblems or marks that may be reasonably perceived to be those names, styles emblems or marks . . .
4. The Dorchester County clerk is directed, upon the filing of this order, to refund the sum of $50,000.00 to the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina.
5. The Defendants counterclaims are dismissed with prejudice.
Read it carefully and read it all (it is a 54 page pdf)
Thanks be to God! And thanks also to Judge Goodstein, who has done a thorough and creditable job. I have felt all along that the Diocese had the law on its side, but it is wonderful, wonderful to have this result.
Yay! What wonderful news and an answer to prayer. I can’t describe how pleased I am. God bless the wonderful diocese of South Carolina, Bishop Mark and its clergy and people, and by no means least Canon Harmon. It looks like Judge Goodstein has done a thorough job. Thanks be to God for her too. May God use them all mightily for His kingdom in South Carolina and beyond.
This ruling comes as an incredible relief. Congratulations especially to the Bishop and the diocesan legal team who were so patient and worked so hard.
I left the Episcopal Church when the law suits started to fly, however I am very happy for +Mark and his flock.
Don
Charleston
finally some good news! thanks be to God!
I figure they will take a shot at the Federal court which rebuffed them earlier since it was still in the state court.
Do take the time to read the entire decision. The reasoning behind it is very clear, compelling, and leaves no wiggle room for TEC. They can try appealing, but it will be a very tough challenge; most of the issues are state level material, so a Federal court is likely to toss the case immediately, recognizing it as a desperate attempt at venue-shopping.
The only disappointment is that SC law allows for awarding “reasonable attorneys fees” to defend against the willful violation of registered names/symbols. TEC should have found itself footing the bill for the Diocese of SC to defend itself.
We don’t say it enough, Kendall, but thank you for all you do for God in our diocese.
Well said Marcus+
Congratulations to the DioSC.
Thanks be to God.
This is so heartening to everyone in Dio SC and everyone who has prayed for them. Its not the end of the road of course – somewhere I can hear distant teeth grinding, and I expect they will seek to double down on poor odds by launching yet more appeals. But this is great comfort and a reminder of the Lord’s care for his people.
Pray for a similar result in the Fort Worth hearing coming up.
Ditto to everyone above. Thanks be to God for this milestone victory.
Now maybe, just maybe, the US Supreme Court will be willing to take up a future case involving a religious property dispute, as reluctant as they are to wade into those murky, stormy waters. It’s desperately needed since the Texas, Quincy, and SC cases point in one direction, while our various losses in other jurisdictions point the other way. I sure hope so, because the last time SCOTUS weighed in on such complex and sensitive matters was over 30 years ago and there has been a great deal of unfortunate confusion over whether “neutral principles” or “deference” to the hierarchy of a “hierarchical” denomination should be the preferred method of resolving such bitter disputes.
But in the meantime, this is a huge cause for celebration. A highly successful Mere Anglicanism conference followed in short order by a decisive legal victory, the marvelous Docese of SC is on a roll. Deo gratias.
David Handy+
Good news! What does “dismissed with prejudice” mean regarding TEC’s counter claims?
#13–She dismissed them on the merits, as a permanent and final ruling on the counter claims. TEC can appeal her ruling, but if they do not, the counter claims can never be brought up again in any future proceeding. If they do, they will have a very tough row to hoe.
I am very happy for all those faithful who have seen the truth vindicated. God is good, all of the time.
David Handy+, “our various losses in other jurisdictions” were parishes trying to leave dioceses. So far as I know Quincy, San Joaquin, Ft. Worth and SC are the only diocese which have left the General Convention. In San Joaquin it’s been tough, but the other three are looking promising.
I think other state courts have erred in ruling that the name on the deed is not the “real” owner of the property, and that an implied trust imposed from above can be enforced.
Oh, I forgot Pittsburgh, but in that case the Diocese had signed a consent decree which turned out to invalidate their claim to diocesan property.
#17,
You make a very important point about the [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/media/diopgh-decision-10-6-09.pdf]decision[/url] in the Pittsburgh case. In fact, the Pittsburgh court explicitly assumed that the withdrawal from TEC by the ACNA diocese was valid:
[blockquote]The plaintiffs and intervenor [TEC parties] have always disputed whether a diocese may withdraw from the Episcopal Church. For the purposes of this proceeding, the court assumed that the withdrawal was valid and now will determine whether defendants [ACNA diocese] are in violation of the October 14, 2005 Stipulation.[/blockquote]
The terms of the stipulation were unique to Pittsburgh and are of no relevance to any other litigation, and this excerpt shows that the court made no ruling suggesting a diocese cannot leave. Quite the contrary.
Katherine and wildfire,
You are quite correct, of course, that there is a big difference between cases involving parishes leaving TEC and dioceses leaving in that the infamous Dennis Canon never even contemplated the possibility that an entire diocese, or the vast majority of a diocese, might sever its association with TEC. But there are still minor points made along the way that should help change the momentum in the legal sphere, if more parishes (or dioceses) should choose to leave TEC in the future, say after a scandalous General Convention this summer.
After all, the fundamental legal issue is whether the courts should be applying “neutral principles” in religious property disputes or whether instead they should give preferential treatment, as they traditionally have done in many cases, to the “hierarchy” of “hierarchical” or non-congregational denominations and thus defer to them. That basic question doesn’t seem to be affected much by whether it’s a parish or a regional judicatory that secedes or disassociates from a national church body.
In particular, I found very compelling and significant the strong claim of Judge Goodstein about the right to disassociate being the flip side of the right of association that is widely acknowledged by the courts as a fundamental American right. She is right. The two things are inherently linked. If there is a basic American right to form associations of all sorts, that necessarily implies, unless expressly stated in the founding documents of any organization, that there is likewise a fundamental right to disassociate as well. If that argument by Judge Diane Goodstein stands up under scrutiny and challenge, that does indeed set a very valuable precedent in all future cases involving religious property disputes when a smaller religious group, of whatever size and sort, withdraws from the larger body of which it was a part. But hey, I’m no lawyer. I leave that to the legal experts to settle.
David Handy+
Agree with David Handy+,
I too found that part of Judge Goodstein’s ruling quite intriguing.
I am not a lawyer either but that little nugget of the freedom to disassociate has been picked up by esteemed canon law lawyer, Alan Haley. He called her statement about the freedom to disassociate… “one of the best judicial discussions to date of the First Amendment rights of a diocese-member of an unincorporated church such as ECUSA”.
Part of the quote from Judge Goodstein’s ruling on the [url=http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com]curmudgeon’s own blog[/url]:
“Freedom of association is a fundamental constitutional right: “it is beyond debate that freedom to engage in associations for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the ‘liberty’ assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment …. ” NAACP v. Alabama, 351 U.S. 449, 460 (1958). “[I]t is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, any state action which may have the affect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny.” Id. Freedom of association is a constitutional right of both incorporated and unincorporated associations. Id. With the freedom to associate goes its corollary, the freedom to disassociate.”
Seems pretty clear to me….. Lets hope other courts see it this way as well.
## 19 and 20
I would be the last person to disagree about freedom of association.
I did not intend to address parish issues in my comment above. I only wanted to emphasize the point made by Katherine in #17 that the victory by TEC in Pittsburgh was due to the terms of a stipulation settling a previous lawsuit and had nothing to do with whether a diocese (let alone a parish) could withdraw from TEC.