tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post7409621632055922714..comments2024-02-19T07:24:42.397-08:00Comments on Anglican Curmudgeon: More Hollow Gains, ApparentlyA. S. Haleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-13724593631546301372012-05-14T19:09:20.835-07:002012-05-14T19:09:20.835-07:00Thank you, Mr. Haley, for your very helpful clarif...Thank you, Mr. Haley, for your very helpful clarification concerning the two questions in post #8. It's not disappointing that a final decision would bar relief to a party who has not appealed an erroneous decision. However, learning that States are free under the decision in Jones v. Wolf to decide a church property case using either a hierarchical method or a neutral principles of law method is disappointing because that seems, in effect, to permit an arbitrary application of the elevation of form over substance in property disputes involving religious bodies. This seems especially difficult to reconcile with the reason for the application of neutral principles of law<br />in cases where, as you have noted, a State claims to be applying neutral principles to law in property disputes involving religious bodies while remaining free to defer to the structural arrangement applicable to the religious body involved in the case (and apparently actually doing so in important instances). Such a result seems to permit some cases involving property disputes to be decided less on matters of substance than matters whose nature is more collateral to the issues in the case. A result of the sort you mention thus seems to beg the truly important question involved, viz.: What was the usefulness of advancing the application of neutral principles of law in Jones v. Wolf in the first place as a method applicable in cases involving these types of property disputes?williamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462159892385010372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-70358919840334384942012-05-14T14:29:44.141-07:002012-05-14T14:29:44.141-07:00williamp, let me do my best to answer your questio...williamp, let me do my best to answer your questions, as I understand them.<br /><br />1. The U.S. Supreme Court in <i>Jones v. Wolf,</i> a 1979 decision, made it clear by a 5-4 majority that State courts could apply <b>either</b> of two methods to resolve church property disputes: (1) "neutral principles of law" (which the majority applied in that case to the Supreme Court of Georgia's decision), or (2) the old standard of "deference to a hierarchical church," as set out in its 1871 decision of <i>Watson v. Jones.</i><br /><br />There was no mandate by the Court which directed how States were to choose between the two; it held only that they were free to choose either, without violating the First Amendment, so long as they stayed clear of interpreting religious doctrine in making their decision.<br /><br />More and more States have opted for "neutral principles", but some of those still defer to so-called "hierarchical" churches even while claiming to apply "neutral principles," and that is the source of a good deal of the confusion in this area.<br /><br />2. In general, the law favors finality or correctness. lf an incorrect decision is not appealed, then its results cannot be reversed just because a later decision says the earlier one was decided incorrectly. A decision typically becomes "final" in that sense after all time to take an appeal to the next higher level has run out.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-22226193154369893412012-05-14T12:42:37.087-07:002012-05-14T12:42:37.087-07:00Mr. Haley,I've been pondering some legal quest...Mr. Haley,I've been pondering some legal questions relating to recent church property cases and would appreciate your comments. <br /><br />1. Was the U.S. Supreme Court decision that introduced the "neutral principles of law application" in cases involving the property of a disaffiliated congregation/parish, etc. in reality--in law as well in logic--ineffective as authority for a lower court to CHOOSE between applying an "hierarchial" test in lieu standard in deciding such cases, or legally and logically, IF it is CLEAR from the facts of a case that it may be decided upon neutral principles of law, isn't a lower court then REQUIRED to apply such principles in deciding the case? (I.e., wouldn't a lower court be acting ultra vires if it applies a "hierarchial" test in a case that CLEARLY may be decided upon neutral principles of law (e.g., a case involving a recently-disaffiliated former parish of TEC, organized after TEC/PECUSA came into existence and thus involving issues relating to the applicability of the "Dennis Canon" to the property of the parish in the light of trust law of the state in which the formerly-affiliated parish is located?)) The Humpty-Dumpty-like and ultra-distorting quote of "individuals being able to leave TEC but not parishes" seems to serve some courts far too well in avoiding making the legal analysis that appears to be REQUIRED under the governing U.S. Supreme Court decision.<br /><br />2.If "1." (above) is answered affirmatively, is it then logically and legally accurate to posit that if the U.S. Supreme Court does finally rule on cases of this type and a decision favorable to parishes/congregations results (because that Court determines that neutral principles should have been the basis for a lower court review but an "hierarchial" test instead was the erroneous basis for the court's decision), won't some parishes/congregations/etc., then be able, following such decision, to negotiate with TEC for compensation and similar relief even though they didn't appeal a decision of a lower court that erroneously based its decision on an "hierarchial" test? (I can understand that some congregations/parishes might be barred if they had previously reached a financial settlement with TEC following their disaffiliation with TEC and/or a lower court decision, however, others would undoubtedly clearly suffered harm as a result of misapplication of the relevant law and should now be entitled to some relief as a result of an erroneous lower-court decision).williamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462159892385010372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-24694600400736204112012-05-13T11:00:39.476-07:002012-05-13T11:00:39.476-07:00The case in Indiana, Galletta, was argued to its S...The case in Indiana, Galletta, was argued to its Supreme Court last September. Although the justices at oral argument appeared hostile to the Church's unilaterally trying to create a trust, we still do not have a published decision from them. And that case is another one involving PCUSA, not ECUSA.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-2518845039738626792012-05-12T18:17:42.202-07:002012-05-12T18:17:42.202-07:00Interesting Mr. Haley. Wasn't there a case in ...Interesting Mr. Haley. Wasn't there a case in Indiana as well? I find all these legal victories hard to stomach even if I do live in the only state legally free from the Denis Canon. What tragedy that TEC has to pursue this legal actions against fellow Christians. Well actually lets just say Christians as I am not sure those who lead TEC are Christian.Gallettahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07062791988762007882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-75878814602206520912012-05-12T14:14:06.597-07:002012-05-12T14:14:06.597-07:00Thank you for the correction, Bishop Lyons. I have...Thank you for the correction, Bishop Lyons. I have added a link to the original letter, attached as an Exhibit to one of St. James' briefs in the California litigation.<br /><br />Galletta, you are correct that only the South Carolina Supreme Court has so ruled in a case applying the Dennis Canon. Courts in Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, and New Hampshire have ruled similarly in cases involving other denominational trusts, such as PCUSA's. <br /><br />The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in its opinion in the case affirming the lower court's decision in the case of <a href="http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2009/06/dog-in-manger.html" rel="nofollow">St. James the Less</a>, did say that not even the Dennis Canon could create a trust without evidence of the property owner's (settlor's) consent. However, it found evidence of such previous consent in the articles and actions of the parish corporation.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-39722920066225624972012-05-12T12:48:05.067-07:002012-05-12T12:48:05.067-07:00David, As far as I know ONLY the South Carolina Su...David, As far as I know ONLY the South Carolina Supreme Court has ruled that the Denis Canon has no effect for the very reason that Mr. Haley has made quite clear on his blog. So there are a few judges who understand. Would love to know if there are any more judges that understand these issues.Gallettahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07062791988762007882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-57588300791698722772012-05-12T10:42:31.678-07:002012-05-12T10:42:31.678-07:00McPherson was Canon to the Ordinary at that time.McPherson was Canon to the Ordinary at that time.Frank Lyonshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06635271411755973464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-37572458949678300402012-05-12T06:40:02.123-07:002012-05-12T06:40:02.123-07:00Are there, in fact, any judges in this country who...Are there, in fact, any judges in this country who know anything about the law? Or is knowledge of the law optional for a judge?<br /><br />David KatzakianUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02601012457994842841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-39888983203609514552012-05-11T09:31:00.240-07:002012-05-11T09:31:00.240-07:00And these people call themselves Christians. Do th...And these people call themselves Christians. Do they read nothing else but the Nicene Creed? (And maybe skip the small part about 'sin'?)The Reformed Reinhardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117578058106157744noreply@blogger.com