Support the Café
Search our site

California Supreme Court remands case, again

California Supreme Court remands case, again

It’s difficult to imagine it changes anything, given what the state Supreme Court has said in previous rulings on the case in favor of the Diocese of Los Angeles, but that court has remanded the St. James property to a lower court yet again.


From the diocese’s Episcopal News:

A California Supreme Court opinion released today “does not detract at all” from the high court’s 2009 opinion affirming that property occupied by local parishes is held in trust for the general church, said John R. Shiner, lead attorney for the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles.

“All the Supreme Court has done is send the case back for further proceedings consistent with its earlier opinion,” Shiner said of today’s 6-1 opinion….

“The thrust of today’s decision does not diminish the Supreme Court’s earlier opinion that clearly found, based on the record before it, that the property belongs to the diocese and wider church,” Shiner said, citing the Court of Appeal’s 2010 opinion in favor of the diocese and wider church.

From today’s Opinion:

[In our earlier opinion] we also concluded, “on this record, that the general church, not the local church, owns the

property in question.”

The majority [of the appeals court] viewed our opinion in Episcopal Church Cases, supra, 45 Cal.4th 467, as having resolved the property dispute for all purposes, leaving nothing for

the trial court to do on remand but to dispose of the cases in favor of the Los Angeles Diocese and Episcopal Church….

[W]e now conclude that the majority in the Court of Appeal erred. It is true that we “address[ed]” the merits of the property dispute because the parties had briefed the question, and it presented an important question of law. (Episcopal Church Cases, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 478.) Based on the arguments the parties presented, we did conclude “on this record,” that the general church owns the disputed property. (Id. at p. 473.) But what we said must be viewed in light of the case’s procedural posture.

In the dissenting opinion filed today, Justice Kennard states that “the Court of Appeal acted correctly when it granted the national church organization’s petition … and directed the trial court to grant the church’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.”

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

1 Comment
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paul Woodrum

Where is it written that the purpose of American Courts is to discourage people from using them to seek justice through proceedures so protracted that both the wills and pockets of all involved are exhausted?

Facebooktwitterrss
Support the Café
Past Posts
2020_012
2020_013_B
2020_013_A
2020_011

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café