Episcopal Press and News
LOS ANGELES: California high court returns property dispute to trial court
Episcopal News Service. May 10, 2011 [051011-02]
Pat McCaughan
The California Supreme Court on May 5 returned to a lower court the lawsuit involving a seven-year property dispute between the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles and a breakaway Newport Beach church.
The court, in a 6-1 decision, said that St. James Anglican Church, which disaffiliated from the Episcopal Church in 2003, can present arguments to show that the church and the property are owned by the congregation and not by the Los Angeles diocese and Episcopal Church.
"We are glad the legal process continues to move forward to completion," Bishop Jon Bruno said in a statement posted on the diocesan website. "I thank everyone for their prayers in this matter. Please continue to pray as we move toward the reality of a church united."
The California Supreme Court had previously ruled that church property is not owned, but rather is held in trust, by the local congregation for the mission and ministry of the wider church—a decision that "people can't lose sight of" in spite of this most recent ruling, said John Shiner, attorney for the Los Angeles diocese.
"All this decision did was say that we need to return to the trial court and go through further proceedings," Shiner said in a May 9 telephone interview from his Los Angeles office. He characterized the latest ruling as "a procedural decision that had nothing to do with the substance of what the court found before," he said.
"When the Supreme Court in its earlier opinion said that, based on the record before it, we prevail, it was at a very early stage in the proceedings," Shiner explained. "The other side felt it should be given a further opportunity to present arguments in court before the trial court reached a conclusion and the Supreme Court concurred."
But Associate Justice Joyce L. Kennard, in a dissenting opinion, said the appellate court "acted correctly when it granted the national church organization's petition for a writ of mandate and directed the trial court to grant the church's motion for judgment."
Eric Sohlgren, the attorney representing St. James, said the Newport Beach group "has been vindicated" in a statement posted on the church website.
In a May 10 email to ENS Sohlgren added that: "the Court made clear that its 2009 decision had to be interpreted based on what had happened in the trial court before then. Specifically, St. James had won in the trial court in 2005 by attacking the Episcopal allegations before St. James could even answer the Episcopal complaints or present its defense case.
"Second, the court said it rejected an Episcopal argument that the Court's 2009 decision had ruled upon a 1991 letter in which (retired Los Angeles) Bishop Borsch, through his attorney-in-fact, promised St. James that it could hold its property free of any trust interest," Sohlgren said in the email. "The Court said last week, 'We express no opinion regarding the legal significance, if any, of the 1991 letter. We merely hold that a court must decide the question.'"
Shiner called the circumstances "highly unique in that we went to the Supreme Court at a very early point in the proceedings. It's complicated because of the nature of the motions the other side brought which we appealed. We wound up in front of the California Supreme Court and the court wanted to set the standard, the test for these kinds of cases going forward and it decided to so at a very early point in these proceedings."
The diocese and the Episcopal Church have sued for return of property and assets after the congregation, citing differences over the ordination of women and gays, disaffiliated from the Episcopal Church.
Shiner said the earlier decision of the state supreme court "was very comprehensive and unequivocally concluded that, based on the record before it at that particular time, we prevailed.
No trial date has been set but when that happens, "I believe it will move fairly quickly," Shiner said.