Friday, June 19, 2020

SC Court on Remand Vindicates Bishop Lawrence and His Parishes

At 8:39 a.m. EDT this morning, South Carolina Circuit Court Judge Edgar Dickson filed his long-awaited decision on remand in the drawn-out dispute between Bishop Lawrence and the (now) Anglican Diocese of South Carolina vs. the Episcopal Church (USA) and its diocese (created to replace that of Bishop Lawrence when the latter voted to withdraw from ECUSA).

The decision is a full and clear vindication of all of the arguments made by Bishop Lawrence and his parishes, with the exception of those concerning trademarks, insignia and intellectual property (which Judge Dickson held were governed by federal trademark law). Making factual findings as to each of thirty-six individual parishes, Judge Dickson ruled (1) following the still-controlling decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court in All Saints Waccamaw, ECUSA's Dennis Canon by itself does not create or impose a legally binding trust on any church property in South Carolina; (2) none of the thirty-six parishes ever expressly acceded to the Dennis Canon in any written document; and (3) Bishop Lawrence's Diocese did not lose its status as beneficiary of the Camp Christopher Trust when it exercised its legal right to disassociate from ECUSA (again following another holding of the Waccamaw case).

Judge Dickson does an excellent job of laying out these conclusions at the close of his Order:
The neutral principles of property, corporate, and trust law [in South Carolina] have been consistent for years. Lawyers and judges understand those principles and are competent to decide issue[s] based upon them. Additionally, neutral principles of law avoid[] all religious discussion, including which party is “true” to their denomination. 
This is a property case. A decision on property ownership is usually governed by the title to real estate—the deed. In this case, all the Plaintiff Parishes hold title to their property in fee simple absolute. 
Ownership may be [a]ffected by [a] trust: a clear, convincing legal statement of a trust—not a promise, not a pledge, not polity. This Court concludes that there is no signed writing by the Plaintiffs expressly acceding to the Dennis Canon. This Court concludes there is no evidence establishing an intent by the Plaintiff Parishes to create a trust in favor of Defendants nor did the Plaintiffs ever vote on or consider acceding specifically to the Dennis Canon. Statements of allegiance are insufficient to establish an expressed trust. TEC unilaterally drafted the Dennis Canon. Since TEC and TECSC are not the owners of the Parish properties, they cannot establish a trust for themselves simply by declaring that they are also the beneficiary of the trust. The Dennis Canon by itself does not create a “legally cognizable” trust nor does [it] transfer title to property.
What does this mean on the ground? Again, Judge Dickson -- in contrast to the indeterminate and scattered holdings of the South Carolina Supreme Court, whose "Collective Opinions" he was forced to parse and make sense of -- leaves nothing unclear:
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the thirty-six Plaintiff Parishes be, and hereby are, declared and affirmed as the title owners in fee simple absolute of their respective parish real properties, with improvements thereon and their accompanying personal property.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that certified true copies of this order shall be filed in the Clerk of Court’s Office in the county where each parish is located.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants herein have no interest in the Plaintiff Parishes’ properties.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ownership to Camp St. Christopher remain as titled to the Trustees of the Corporation as stated in the 1951 deed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Federal Court has jurisdiction over all matters related to trademarks, service marks, and intellectual property.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the request for the Appointment of a Special Master, the Petition for an Accounting are denied.
Your Curmudgeon does not gloat or boast, but tries to keep things humble and accurate here. Nevertheless, this earlier post foreshadowed this result. It was obvious to a lawyer's mind that no three justices of the South Carolina Supreme Court had agreed on anything except that they were not overruling All Saints Waccamaw, which remained good law. And following that lead, Judge Dickson finds that each of the questions presented for him on remand was already resolved by that earlier decision.

Those commenters who took the arrogance of Justices Hearn and Pleicones (who were actually in the minority, but refused to acknowledge it) at face value were misled into thinking that they properly summarized the fractured holdings of the Court. But they did not. All they did was adhere to their blinkered view that South Carolina should revert to the deference rule in church property disputes -- and that view, as Judge Dickson conclusively demonstrates, was not the majority view.

Where will things go from here? Well, Judge Dickson notes that there is still a pending motion to reconsider ECUSA's earlier motion to dismiss, but that motion is pretty well now moot, given that he has ruled on the merits. So what ECUSA and its diocese can do is once again appeal to the South Carolina Court of Appeals, and then to the state's Supreme Court. But this time, things will be different:

1. There are two new Justices on the Court (replacing Pleicones and Toal, who retired), plus Justice Hearn has recused herself from all further proceedings in this case. That leaves only four, as there were on +Lawrence's earlier Petition for Rehearing, but this time a 2-2 split would mean that Judge Dickson's Order would stand. So ECUSA's attorneys would need to get the votes of three of the four sitting Justices. Given the Court's repeated refusal to interfere with the process on remand, that eventuality does not seem likely.

2. To this day, as Judge Dickson notes, All Saints Waccamaw remains the law of the land in South Carolina, and it governs each of the property and trust questions on remand. ECUSA failed, even with the dubious participation of Justice Hearn, to get three votes to overturn Waccamaw. So where will they get them now, with Justice Hearn removed from the case?

3. This time (unlike last time), the record on appeal will include all of the individual parish documents, which show conclusively that none of them ever expressly "acceded" to the Dennis Canon as such. At most, some (but by no means all) parishes employed general language about being bound by the Constitution and "rules" (Canons) of the Episcopal Church in the United States. Moreover, the record will show that Bishop Lawrence's diocese expressly revoked any effect of the Dennis Canon upon parish properties before it withdrew from ECUSA.

4. As Judge Dickson notes in his Order (p. 6), "the trial court's findings of fact will be upheld on appeal when they are reasonably supported by the evidence unless: (1) the findings of fact are wholly unsupported by the evidence; or (2) unless it clearly appears the findings were influenced or controlled by an error of law." On the prior appeal, as Judge Dickson also points out, ECUSA and its diocese did not even appeal from Judge Diane Goodstein's findings of fact as to the parishes' not acceding to the Dennis Canon. But now Judge Dickson has extended and expanded those findings as to each individual parish, and they are amply "supported by the [documentary] evidence" he cites.

5. There is absolutely no evidence in the record, as Judge Dickson observes, of fraud or deceit justifying the law's imposition of a "constructive trust" on the parishes' properties. Instead, the evidence shows that they individually, and not ECUSA, paid for their own properties, and built and maintained their buildings at their expense.

6. Bishop Lawrence and his Diocese have moved on from their state-law claims to the trademarks and insignia of the traditional South Carolina Diocese. (The federal case, where the ownership to those marks is in dispute, is on appeal to the Fourth Circuit, and will be decided in that court.)

These considerations argue strongly against any chance of success were ECUSA and its diocese to try to appeal from Judge Dickson's order. But that never stopped them before, so do not hold your breath.


  1. Great news. How long do TEC and the rump diocese have to appeal?

    1. UP, they will probably first ask Judge Dickson to reconsider his ruling -- they have ten days in which to do that. If he denies that request, they will have 30 days from that date to file their appeal, or from today if they do not request reconsideration.

    2. Yesterday, TEC and the rump diocese filed its appeal with Judge Dickson. They say that there was a remittitur rather than a remand, providing I read it correctly.

  2. Easily the best, and nearly the only good news in the last few weeks. No doubt TEC will continue to pour money into this. Liberals, whether secular or religious, cannot abide not getting their way and crushing their opponents.

  3. It seems to be a very thorough ruling covering all the bases down to the details of each parish. On what grounds do you think they might appeal?

    1. Most likely, they will argue that Judge Dickson misread the five separate opinions from the Supreme Court, and that he should have followed Pleicones + Hearn + Beatty, rather than Beatty + Toal + Kittredge. But the latter three are the only ones who opted to follow the law governing these disputes, as spelled out in the Waccamaw decision.

  4. Dickson has denied (July 13). ECSC says Tisdale says case will go directly to SCSC (July 14). With Toal and Pleicones gone, how do you see the four voting?

    1. With only four justices sitting, ECUSA would have to get the vote of a minimum of three of them in order to reverse Judge Dickson's order. That means that at least one of the two new appointees would have to side with ECUSA, and that Kittredge or Beatty (or both) would have to go back on what they wrote in their separate opinions. I don't see either of those outcomes as likely.

      My guess is that the vote will be at least 3-1 to uphold Judge Dickson, if one of the new justices dissents. But even if both of them do, the order by Judge Dickson would still stand so long as the other two justices stick to what they wrote earlier.

  5. Thanks. One new judge seems 'Open Methodist.' One has to assume what Dickson has written gives scope for Beatty an Kittredge to say, Yes, that's me.

  6. Would the Curmudgeon care to comment or post on developments in the litigation since Judge Dickson's ruling?

    1. I am not aware, as of this date, of any action taken by the South Carolina Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court regarding Judge Dickson's June 2020 decision. Perhaps, Galletta, you would like to be more specific?

  7. Allegedly the Federal Appeals Court granted a stay of the case until a decision by the South Carolina Supreme Court and, allegedly, a contempt of court by the Federal judge, Richard Gergel, for allegedly finding the Anglican Diocese of SC had used the name "Protestant Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina" for a loan from the Paycheck Protection Program administered by the SBA. The source of the information is spotty, as it is an always not reliable blogger whom you have posted about earlier. Any light you might shed would be most welcome.

  8. Galletta, I have tried three times to respond to your question, but each time has erased my response before it was ready to publish. Suffice it to say that the usual sources have got the issues all confused. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a stay of the Anglican Diocese's appeal from Judge Gergel's September 2019 judgment. His recent (Sept. 2020) decision to find the Anglican Diocese in contempt of that judgment is thus suspended by that stay, as well.

    In short, all courts are now awaiting the action of the South Carolina Supreme Court in ECUSA's and ECSC's appeal from Judge Dickson's decision earlier this year. I may have more to say about how Judge Gergel has everything all wrong, but I said most of it in this earlier post.

    His arrogance is now even more on view, as he rejected Judge Dickson's careful reasoning out of hand. Hopefully, when the SC Supreme Court acts, there will be a basis on which to correct Judge Gergel's studious ignorance of South Carolina corporate law, as well.

    In the meantime, the faithful can only pray and wait.

  9. Blogger continues to confound my attempt to comment on my own blog. The reference to "this earlier post" on Judge Gergel's September 2019 decision is at this URL:

  10. Apparently the new version of Blogger refuses to allow URL links in comments. To see the referenced post, you can click on the September 2019 link in the Blog Archive to the right, or else copy and paste the URL link given above into a new tab in your browser. I am getting rather disgusted with this platform and its continuing interference with reasoned communication.

  11. Thank you, sir, for the replies to my concern. Blessings to you.