..The key question in the California case is: which diocese — the Anglican one that withdrew from ECUSA in December 2007, or the newbie Episcopal one that started up on March 29, 2008 — has the legal control of the corporation sole under California law?
The decision by the Court of Appeal does not address this key question. Indeed, it barely mentions the Anglican Diocese, and does not acknowledge its separate existence under California law, let alone its connection to the corporation sole. (The Episcopal plaintiffs made a strategic decision not to name the Anglican Diocese in their lawsuit, and to make the corp sole a plaintiff as though they already controlled it, because they wanted to pretend that they were the “only” diocese in San Joaquin. It looks as though the strategy confused the civil courts — as it was doubtlessly intended to do.)
The case is not over yet — the Anglican parties can ask the Court for a rehearing based on the factual mistakes it made in its opinion, and if the Court refuses to grant that request, they can ask the California Supreme Court to review the decision, which the Court of Appeal ordered be published in the official reports. (The California Supreme Court tends not to review unpublished opinions.) If such a request is filed, the parties will not know the disposition of the case for another 60 to 120 days.
I continue to be shocked and distressed by these court rulings which ignore reality. In this case, the property is ordered to belong to an entity which did not exist when the property was accumulated.
I am no longer shocked but share your distress, Katherine. I saw a report that the producer of the Planned Parenthood body parts videos’ home was raided with a search warrant. As the courts appear less and less neutral, I have less and less faith in the institutions of our country or hope for its future.