Posted on 02/11/2007 7:31:48 AM PST by sionnsar
[Folks, ken5050 pointed out this comment on the article posted yesterday titled Atlanta: Bishop to St. Andrews in the Pines: "I am in charge now...", on property ownership in that dispute. --sionnsar]
If it turns out that the property was titled in the name of the Diocese, then St. Andrew's will have a real challenge in court (not unwinnble, though, because the parishioners clearly have interest in the property having contributed money over the years).
However, the Dennis Canon should be irrelevant here. Even if it were passed before the parish was formed (I'm not sure), Georgia courts are very loathe to reach deep into denominational laws to enforce anything. The courts should handle this as a straight-forward real estate case, based on the questions of who holds title, who contributed money, and whether the owner of title signed away rights in any subsequent contract.
One excellent Georgia lawyer gave me the following illustration. If you own your home, and join Rotary, and then Rotary passes bylaws claiming that members' houses are held in trust for Rotary, and then you quit Rotary, do you have to sign over the title of your house to Rotary? Obviously not. Rotary can pass resolutions and bylaws until they're blue in the face, but that still doesn't give them ownership of your property because they had no original authority over your property to pass by bylaw to begin with. Likewise, if you (the parish) own your property, your membership in an organization (denomination) that's passed bylaws claiming ownership of your property is irrelevant. If you have the title, you paid for it, and signed no contract giving the denomination interest in your property, you should own it in the clear. The courts exist to enforce governmental law, not church law and not Rotary law.
I'm pretty sure that if the Diocese of Atlanta had title to the property, Alexander would have jumped to say so in his opening paragraph. He's actually put forward a weak case in his opening paragraph. Does he mean that the only thing he can point to, to claim ownership of the parish property, is a 1976 petition and a parish bylaw?
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.
FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (typically 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by sionnsar, Huber and newheart.
Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
More Anglican articles here.
Humor: The Anglican Blue (by Huber)
Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15
sionnsar posted the comments that you and I were discussing. You might want to add your views here for the group..
I guess this is as good a place to post this comment. I go to St. Clement's church in El Paso. It's over 100 years old and is the Pro-Cathedral for the Diocese of the Rio Grande. Our Bishop Jeffery Steenson is a conservative, orthodox Bishop who has protected the churches in the Diocese from the majority of the turmoil in the church. I am concerned that the focus on the ownership of the real estate clouds the real issues. If Anglicans believe we're doing the right thing and upholding the Gospel, then we should be prepared to walk away from the real estate to worship how we believe, wherever we find ourselves. I am prepared to do that, and so should all Anglicans. Churches are just buildings. How many beautiful cathedrals in Europe are vibrant, growing congregations? Not many, I bet.
These are two excellent points.
"One excellent Georgia lawyer gave me the following illustration.
1. If you own your home, and join Rotary, and then Rotary passes bylaws claiming that members' houses are held in trust for Rotary, and then you quit Rotary, do you have to sign over the title of your house to Rotary? Obviously not. Rotary can pass resolutions and bylaws until they're blue in the face, but that still doesn't give them ownership of your property because they had no original authority over your property to pass by bylaw to begin with. Likewise, if you (the parish) own your property, your membership in an organization (denomination) that's passed bylaws claiming ownership of your property is irrelevant. If you have the title, you paid for it, and signed no contract giving the denomination interest in your property, you should own it in the clear. The courts exist to enforce governmental law, not church law and not Rotary law.
2. I'm pretty sure that if the Diocese of Atlanta had title to the property, Alexander would have jumped to say so in his opening paragraph. He's actually put forward a weak case in his opening paragraph. Does he mean that the only thing he can point to, to claim ownership of the parish property, is a 1976 petition and a parish bylaw?
Drove by St. Andrew's this morning. The place was packed, with cars parked all over the grass. I was curious whether the sign still advertised the Episcopal Church; it did, with the logo still untouched.
Sounds like the point made in California with several parishes there: if you join an auto club, and the auto club passes bylaws saying that all your property is held in trust for them, and you leave, that does not necessarily mean that the property should go to the auto club.
At least here in NoVa, as I understand things, the buildings and property are titled to the parishes, and the big ones pre-date the Dennis Canon.
I fully concur -- but then my wife and I walked away from ECUSA altogether 24 years ago, to join a small Continuing church-in-a-box. 3-1/2 years later we held our first service in our new building.
But I don't think summarily abandoning the property is necessarily a good thing either -- you simply fund the heretics' activities further.
The ONLY reason the Dennis Canon even exists is to stem the departure of congregations, as happened in the late 70s and early 80s, and the hook to keep them in was the property. It may have worked for congregations (most of the time), but the individual departures continued.
And seem to be picking up a little, if my church's visitation rate is an indicator -- though not everyone who visits, or stays, is coming from ECUSA.
So far the courts in California have gone with the parish versus a diocese.
Maybe the only place/time a diocese might win these battles would be a parish that was a mission bought and sponsored by the diocese, then maintained for a large part by the diocese.
Maybe we or the parishes in a diocese own that diocese after decades if not centuries of paying the diocese so it stay afloat financially.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.