Dissent says Calif. court used wrong
language in decision against church
By John H. Adams, The Layman, January 6, 2009
The California Supreme Court has issued a ruling that awards the property of St. Johns Parish in Newport Beach, Calif., to the Diocese of Los Angeles of the Episcopal Church (USA).
Other sources
The ruling does not mention current cases involving the Presbyterian Church (USA) and whether its congregations would be dealt with likewise. There are both similarities and differences in the property policies of the two denominations. But the PCUSA was deeply involved in the case through a law firm hired by the denomination and former General Assembly Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick.
‘Neutral principles claimed’
In its ruling, the California court said it applied “the neutral principles of law approach” in reaching its conclusion. However, one member of the court, the highly respected Justice Joyce L. Kennard, disagreed. Although she said she supported the ruling, she argued in dissent that the court reached its conclusion through the “principle of government” approach, not through a neutral principles of law approach.
Hierarchical deference, an approach that has been supported by Kirkpatrick, holds that in a property dispute between a local church and a hierarchical denomination, the court should favor the claims of the denomination.
The neutral principles of law approach treats church property ownership in the same way that it would treat nonchurch property ownership. It places its emphasis on deeds, articles of incorporation, bylaws and other corporate documents, and some constitutional documents.
“Applying the neutral principles of law approach, we conclude that the general church, not the local church, owns the property in question,” the court said. “Although the deeds to the property have long been in the name of the local church, that church agreed from the beginning of its existence to be part of the greater church and to be bound by its governing documents. These governing documents make clear that church property is held in trust for the general church and may be controlled by the local church only so long as that local church remains a part of the general church. When it disaffiliated from the general church, the local church did not have the right to take the church property with it.”
Justice disagrees
Justice Joyce L. Kennard
The “conclusion is not based on neutral principles of law,” Kennard said. “No principle of trust law exists that would allow the unilateral creation of a trust by the declaration of a nonowner of property that the owner of the property is holding it in trust for the nonowner.”
She added, “If a neutral principle of law approach were applied here, the Episcopal Church might well lose because the 1950 deed to the disputed property is in the name of St. James Parish, and the Episcopal Church’s 1979 declaration that the parish was holding the property in trust for the Episcopal Church is of no legal consequence.”
She did not say whether the court’s claim of using neutral principles might undercut its decision if the case is appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Eric Sohlgren, an attorney who represents St. James, told the Los Angeles Times that the congregation might appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Sex issue citation irrelevant
Included in the court’s ruling is its notice of the fact that St. James left the Episcopal Church (USA) over the denomination’s ordination of “an openly gay man as a bishop.” The court did not state how, if at all, this factor was relevant to the church property case.
“It appears that the dispute leading to the decision to disaffiliate arose after the national church ordained an openly gay man as a bishop in New Hampshire in 2003,” the court said. “Some members of the Episcopal Church, including members of St. James Parish, disagreed with this ordination.”
Earlier this year, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling requiring lower courts to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples, a decision that many mainline denominational leaders, including the Episcopal Church (USA), applauded. That ruling was subsequently overturned by California voters who enacted a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman.
The ordination of a homosexual bishop was only one factor in St. James decision to disaffiliate from the Episcopal Church (USA). Others were its desire to affiliate with the Worldwide Anglican Communion through a traditional province and its commitment to Biblical theology. These factors were not mentioned in the court’s ruling.
Before the case reached California Supreme Court, a trial court had ruled in favor of St. James but the state’s Court of Appeal overturned the trial court and awarded the property to the denomination.
Canon law cited
“St. James Parish holds record title to the property in question,” the California Supreme Court said. “That is the fact that defendants rely on most heavily in claiming ownership. On the other hand, from the beginning of its existence, St. James Parish promised to be bound by the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church. Such commitment is found in the original application to the higher church authorities to organize as a parish and in the articles of incorporation. Canon I.7.4, adopted in 1979, provides that property held by a local parish ‘is held in trust’ for the general church and the diocese in which the local church is located. The same canon states that the trust does not limit the authority of the parish over the property “so long as the particular Parish . . . remains a part of, and subject to, this Church and its Constitution and Canons.”
Although it said it based its decision on “neutral principles,” the court placed the weight of its opinion on a dissent, rather than the majority opinion, in the 1979 case Jones v. Wolf. The dissent was written by the late Justice Harry Blackmun, who also wrote the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade.
Blackmun dissent highlighted
The court said, “Normally, the dissent” by Justice Harry Blackmun “would not be of great significance to this court, because we are bound by the majority opinion concerning federal constitutional questions. … The dissent argued that ‘in each case involving an intrachurch dispute — including disputes over church property — the civil court must focus directly on ascertaining, and then following, the decision made within the structure of church governance. . . . [B]y recognizing the authoritative resolution reached within the religious association, the civil court avoids interfering indirectly with the religious governance of those who have formed the association and submitted themselves to its authority.’”
Methodist case not followed
The California court also ruled that a Methodist property dispute, in which the state’s Court of Appeals gave the property to the congregation that left the United Methodist Church, did not apply in the St. James case. The appellate court had concluded that a congregation that left the denomination was entitled to its property because it was protected by Cali
fornia trust and corporate laws. The essential finding was that the denomination had no right to encumber an unwilling congregation with an irrevocable trust.