Her answer was that, prior to filing an appeal on the trial verdict, they should pursue a settlement. However, by filing a notice of appeal, they may already have missed the bus on this option.
A settlement would involve two things. The squatters have very little chance of prevailing in further actions. They may be able to delay eviction with incremental strategies, but eviction on some timetable is pretty much inevitable. They can appeal the trial verdict, but it appears that the appeals court can decline to reverse the trial court's verdict. In any case, the appeals court has already heard the case and given an opinion, and Judge Strobel clearly followed the opinion. The appeals judges, from what I've seen, are not patient with clear-loser cases that come before them.
As a result, the squatters have only the possibility of delay and expense on their side. They can trade delay and expense for something. That would likely be an agreement not to pursue damages with specified individuals or the ACA. So the deal would be the squatters agree not to appeal the case and to grant the vestry immediate access. Both sides get curtailment of additional expense. The vestry gets the elimination of legal uncertainty. The squatters get some limitation of damage collection, at least by the vestry.
On the other hand, collection of damages is a separate issue. In some cases, like the squatter capo who can't even pay his lodge dues, there's nothing to collect. (He sometimes claims he has a horse, but other times, he says it's his neighbor's horse, which he's sometimes allowed to ride.) In other cases, it may be possible to collect from wealthier individuals like Mrs Bush, but she would fight the effort, probably depleting her assets in the legal disputes.
However, any agreement between the vestry and individuals not to pursue damages would not cover an insurer's separate pursuit of subrogation in a claim against a policy, which would be independent of any of the cases here.
In cases like Presiding Bishop Marsh or Bishop Strawn, it's in their interest at this point to have the St Mary of the Angels case and their actions in it off the agenda. The case is almost certainly a factor in the stalled merger with the APA. Bishop Grundorf needs to have only ordinary intelligence to recognize that Strawn and Marsh could come into a merged denomination and try to seize APA parishes, in violation of the most solemn promises. Laity and clergy in the ACA could eventually decide it was time to clean house of the bishops who've brought the denomination into disrepute.
As far as I can see, the squatters have depleted all their resources and in fact have borrowed more to finance a losing legal effort. I'm curious at this stage where the money is coming from to continue any sort of operation, much less more appeals. "Bishop" Owen Williams, for instance, appears to continue his residence on Rodney Road in Los Feliz. Rents at that location run from $1600 to $2400 a month, and the squatters are presumably paying his housing allowance. Where is this money coming from?
So the squatters and the ACA do not appear to be acting in accordance with what appears to be their best interests. Either they are delusional, or there are factors which they want to conceal should the vestry gain access to the property and the bank accounts. We'll see soon enough, I think.
