Legal Update

On September 3, the last possible day, the attorneys for Mrs Bush and the ACA filed a petition for review of the appeals court's July 23 decision largely in favor of the St Mary's elected vestry. (I haven't discussed the specifics of the case or the elected vestry's legal strategy with anyone on the vestry or its legal team.) However, my wife and I think it's unlikely the supreme court will review the case.

For starters, the opinion is "unpublished", which means it can't be used as a precedent.

One of the most straightforward reasons for granting review is to secure "uniformity of decision" - to ensure that trial courts have a consistent body of law to follow. Because unpublished decisions are not considered precedent and therefore do not affect California law (Cal. R. Ct. 8.1115(a)), they are unlikely to be accepted for review under this criterion.

The appellate court also accepted the elected vestry's position that established principles of contract law and established precedent could allow a trial court to determine the facts of the case. This means that the supreme court is unlikely to decide that some new area of the law needs to be clarified as a result of the case -- California has had a fairly large number of cases stemming from ownership and control of church property in recent years, due to the large number of parish defections in the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin. The elected vestry's attorneys used these cases as precedent.

In addition, the appeals court took a "least drastic" approach in its decision, sending the case back for trial, rather than awarding the case to the elected vestry as it had requested. It appears to me that the appeals court was deliberately adopting a low profile in this case in order to avoid review by the supreme court, although nothing is certain in these situations.

A successful petition for review does not merely harp on errors in the lower courts. Instead, it demonstrates convincingly how the court of appeal's decision significantly affects a broad range of Californians; or presents a conflict between lower courts that must be settled; or both. At the state's high court, where only a small fraction of requests for review can be granted, nothing less will do.

The California Supreme Court will take at least 60 days to decide whether to review the case, although the likelihood is high that it will not. If it decides not to review, the case goes back for trial, which is the outcome Mrs Bush and the ACA have tried to avoid from the start.

"Bishop" (or is it "Pastor") Williams is apparently now saying mass at St Mary's. Like his colleagues, the man is reckless and a dangerous incompetent.