Episcopal Diocese of Virginia Sues 11 Seceding Congregations Over Property Ownership

WP: Diocese Sues 11 Seceding Congregations Over Property Ownership
By Michelle Boorstein and Jacqueline L. Salmon
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, February 1, 2007; Page B04

The Episcopal Diocese of Virginia filed lawsuits yesterday against 11 conservative congregations that voted to leave the U.S. church and are fighting to keep their parish properties and assets.

The Circuit Court lawsuits, almost all in Northern Virginia, ask the court to declare the diocese the rightful owner of all property, which is worth well into the tens of millions of dollars. The suits also ask the court to force the breakaway congregations off the 11 properties, which they have occupied since the votes in December and January.

The legal move was not unexpected because the two sides have met only once, in December, and have spoken publicly about finding no middle ground.

"This is just the next step in moving forward," said Patrick Getlein, spokesman for the diocese.

The dispute is part of a much broader, years-long conflict between a minority group of conservatives and the Episcopal Church, which is the U.S. branch of the Anglican Communion. The congregations think church leadership does not follow a proper reading of Scripture, particularly on the issue of homosexuality....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/31/AR2007013102245.html

on its side. I don't know about the legalities. It could get interesting. Does anyone else know?

But even if the local congregation raised lots of money to build the church, it belongs to the diocese. If the congregation breaks away and they want to keep the building, they have to buy it, if the diocese will allow it.

could walk around the restrictions in wills that said money was to go for say the music program. and use it for general expenses based on the fact there would be no music program if the Parish existence ended, but the building was the congregation's responsibility to maintain, but owned by the Diocese.

I should note that was only one Parish - and just my biased non-legal opinion as an officer (Parish Treasurer) of the Church. I suspect this will be a close decision as the Episcopal Church does not exert the tight legal control over Parishes that the Roman Church does.

The Virginia canons follow the national canons, but the concept of the local parish holding the buildings in trust for the diocese has been broken in several California cases. Here is an interesting article on the subject.

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/12533

Who owns the steeple?
Religion: Litigation looms over church property as conservative congregations and dioceses consider leaving mainline denominations | Edward E. Plowman

As The Episcopal Church (TEC) finds itself cracking apart, the question on everybody's mind is: "Can departing churches keep their property?"

The answer: It depends. Courts differ in how they handle church property disputes. State corporate laws governing property ownership, deeds, and trusts are far from uniform and may be subject to conflicting interpretations. So, as litigation looms, attorneys on all sides are busy researching case law and assembling briefs.

(jump)

However, a California appeals court in 1981 spelled out a series of neutral principles in deciding The Protestant Episcopal Church v. Barker. It in effect ignored the Dennis law and allowed three departing Episcopal congregations to keep their property while denying another.

Fast forward to 2004: A California appeals court allowed St. Luke's United Methodist Church in Fresno, which had left the UMC, to keep its property. St. Luke's had changed its articles of incorporation, clearly deeding all its property to itself with no mention of a trust. That act, the court ruled unanimously, revoked the UMC trust. In short, trusts are not a dead-end; the party that created a trust can revoke it. The California Supreme Court upheld the decision that same year.

1 Corinthians 6:5-7
I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?

Then again, that's Paul. Then again, he's the jerk that wrote "Now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love" (1 Corinthians 13:13). Obviously he hates Jesus.

Perhaps the last bit should be altered to, The greatest of these is property rights.

And the first (I Cor. 6) should be revised to:
"Let me take a moment to say how wonderful you are all.. There are such wise members among you, those that can judge and condemn other Christians with such passion!
People take each other to court, a damned good thing, if you ask me, especially when other Christians are involved.
So it's a good thing--sue the pants off of them, and by no means be like Jesus, letting others take advantage of you. Why, there's nothing worse than being taken advantage of. Make the other bastard suffer if he offends you, *that's* what Jesus is really all about."

going on here:

http://frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com/