Today in Episcopal Church Cases, (CA Sup. Ct., Jan. 5, 2009), the California Supreme Court held that building and property of the St. James Parish in Newport Beach belongs to the Episcopal Church, not the parish, once the parish broke away and affiliated with the more conservative Anglican Church of Uganda. The Canons of the Episcopal Church provide that property held by a local parish is held in trust for the general church and for the diocese in which the local church is located.
The court determined that the following test should be used in church property disputes under California law:
if resolution of a property dispute involves a point of [religious] doctrine, the court must defer to the position of the highest ecclesiastical authority that has decided the point. But to the extent the court can resolve a property dispute without reference to church doctrine, it should apply neutral principles of law. The court should consider sources such as the deeds to the property in dispute, the local church’s articles of incorporation, the general church’s constitution, canons, and rules, and relevant statutes, including statutes specifically concerning religious property, such as Corporations Code section 9142 [which provides that the governing instruments of a general church may impress a trust on property of a local church].The court also concluded that the suit was not subject to an anti-SLAPP motion to strike under California law. A partial concurrence by Justice Kennard argued that Corporations Code sec. 9142 vests the property with the Episcopal Church because it imposes the principle that civil courts must accept decisions of the highest authority in an hierarchical church. She argues that the statute does not reflect a "neutral principles" approach, because it imposes a special rule on religious organizations that would not apply under general property law. The statute allowed imposition of a trust on church property without the congregation's agreement by a resolution adopted after it owned the property. [Thanks to John B. Chilton for the lead.]
.jpg)
Posts
3 comments:
Professor Friedman, even though you cover more than just the Anglican/Episcopal front, I am going to link to your blog on my site. I find your straightforward commentary very helpful and useful, with all the links.
One minor correction on this particular post: it's Justice Joyce Kennard who filed a partial concurrence---a she, not a he.
Thanks for all the work you do on this site.
Thanks. I've corrected the reference to Justice Kennard.
I just wonder if the decision would have gone the same way if the split-off group had been the one to favor homosexuality--say in a conservative evangelical church. Or would a court then find some excuse to say that the majority of the church members should get to keep the building --rather than the denomination.
I appreciate that the court recognized the church rules that say the denomination owns the property --but I can see another scenario where they would decide it was fair for the majority of members who had paid for the building to get the property. I sort of think that would be most fair for all churches to write into their bylaws.
Post a Comment