{"id":107686,"date":"2021-12-10T08:00:42","date_gmt":"2021-12-10T13:00:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/?p=107686"},"modified":"2021-12-10T07:23:15","modified_gmt":"2021-12-10T12:23:15","slug":"historic-anglican-diocese-of-sc-south-carolina-supreme-court-hears-tec-appeal-from-judge-dicksons-interpretation-of-the-2017-collective-opinions-in-church-property-dispute","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kendallharmon.net\/?p=107686","title":{"rendered":"(Historic Anglican Diocese of SC) South Carolina Supreme Court hears TEC appeal from Judge Dickson\u2019s interpretation of the 2017 Collective Opinions in Church Property Dispute"},"content":{"rendered":"

…[Wednesday] the South Carolina Supreme Court heard the appeal of Judge Edgar W. Dickson\u2019s interpretation of the high court\u2019s 2017 ruling. On June 19, 2020, South Carolina Circuit Court Judge Edgar W. Dickson granted the motion <\/a>by the Plaintiffs (The Anglican Diocese of S.C. and Parishes) for clarification and other relief related to the August 2017 ruling<\/a> of the South Carolina Supreme Court. That ruling had the rare character of consisting of five separate opinions (the \u201cCollective Opinions\u201d). Judge Dickson\u2019s clarification determined that the disassociated parishes and The Anglican Diocese of South Carolina are, \u201caffirmed as the title owners in fee simple absolute of their respective parish real properties.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Episcopal Church\u2019s (TEC) arguments at that time that the Dennis Canon alone, or the Canon in conjunction with various pledges of allegiance and the like were sufficient to create a trust under South Carolina law were rejected. Judge Dickson\u2019s ruling clarified the Collective Opinions, explaining that, \u201cthe Dennis Canon by itself does not create a legally cognizable trust, nor does it transfer title to property.\u201d This affirmed that those congregations that followed state non-profit guidelines for their disassociation from TEC retained all their real and personal property.<\/p>\n

TEC appealed this interpretation of the Courts 2017 collective opinions in July 2020, not on the basis of Judge Dickson\u2019s legal arguments, but only on the assertion that he had no authority to provide any<\/em> interpretation. Their argument is that his only possible role was to simply enforce what they<\/em> assert the Court had ruled.<\/p>\n

In today\u2019s hearing, the justices were very active in their questioning. The time allotted to both sides legal counsel was exceeded because of the extensive questioning.<\/p>\n

Read it all<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

ACNA: SC Supreme Court hears TEC appeal of Judge Dickson\u2019s interpretation of 2017 collective opinionshttps:\/\/t.co\/OKYtH6l9ZQ<\/a> pic.twitter.com\/JJ1AgZJyL6<\/a><\/p>\n

— Anglican Ink (@anglicanink) December 9, 2021<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n