Good News in San Joaquin—appeals court decides in favor of Anglican diocese (UPDATED)

from Stand Firm by Matt Kennedy

Read the entire decision here

In further proceedings, the trial court should apply neutral principles of law to resolve property disputes presented by the remaining causes of action. These neutral principles include First Amendment rights of individuals and corporations (see Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n (2010) ___ U.S. ___, ___ [130 S.Ct. 876, 899]), general California statutory and common law principles governing transfer of title by the legal title holder, the law of trusts, including establishment of trusts and transfers by a trustee in contravention of a trust upon the property (if a trust is established by the evidence), and corporations law, including the law of corporations sole (see Corp. Code, § 10010) and general principles of corporate governance. Other neutral principles of civil law may be relevant; and the governing documents of the diocese and the national church, to the extent those documents may establish trust relationships and limit or expand corporate powers. (See Episcopal Church Cases, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 485.) Thus, the trial court may be required to determine whether properties claimed by both plaintiffs and defendants were actually transferred by their legal owners under California law, and whether otherwise-valid transfers violated the provisions of a valid express or implied trust imposed on the property. But we emphasize that in resolution of , for example, trust issues, the court is required to determine the terms of the trust based on the applicable documents and the civil law, not on the basis of religious doctrine. (See Jones v. Wolf, supra, 443 U.S. at p. 604.)

DISPOSITION
Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the trial court to vacate its July 21, 2009, order in Fresno County Superior Court No. 08CECG01425AMC granting plaintiffs‟ motion for summary adjudication...more

Update: the Anglican Curmudgeon provides an initial explanation of the decision:

The ground upon which the reversal is ordered is that the case as presented by the plaintiffs Lamb and ECUSA in their first cause of action is not properly decidable by the secular courts without their becoming too entangled in First Amendment issues, such as who is the proper Bishop of San Joaquin. It holds that ECUSA's recognition of Bishop Lamb is conclusive as to his position as Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, and to the continuity of that entity "for ecclesiastical purposes", but it goes on to hold that the validity of the transfers of title to diocesan property by Bishop Schofield while he was still the Episcopal Bishop will have to be decided upon neutral principles of state corporate law, and also any relevant governing documents of the Diocese and the national Church.

This decision therefore will require ECUSA to prove through its documents that there is a trust in its favor on all diocesan church property for it to succeed in its claims to diocesan assets...more