Sunday, August 21, 2016

What Problem Are Mrs Bush And The Creels Trying To Solve?

A regular visitor raises a very worthwhile question:
Some time ago, you reported that a [gentleman shouted in the courtroom to] the legitimate vestry that they ultimately would not get the property. I'm guessing that he foresaw that extended legal proceedings would render the parish's property essentially unrentable and that the parish would have difficulty paying its bills without the rental income. The obvious strategy was to force the parish into either bankruptcy or forfeiture of the property for non-payment of taxes, either of which would allow the other group to buy it cheaply.
My own view, as evidence has surfaced over time, continues to be that the Bush-ACA group never had a coherent plan and were never unanimous over it. (For instance, Bartus wanted to go into the OCSP with himself as pastor, while the ACA wanted to keep the parish and allowed Bartus to make the OCSP think the parish would come in under his leadership. That plan was overtaken by events and simply replaced.)

But during Friday's hearing, Judge Murphy made a remark in passing that "maybe a receiver would be the best way to resolve this situation." Mr Lancaster visibly shuddered at this and muttered something along the line of, "no, no, that won't be necessary." I suspect Mr Lengyel-Leahu simply recognized that this was something that could happen and had no apparent reaction.

The problem with bankruptcy is that a receiver looks at all the claims against the property and puts them in order. In addition to creditor claims, there will be liens by attorneys, as well as the apparently fraudulent mortgage Mrs Bush took out in 2014. Add to that the fees the receiver will collect. The result would be that the Bush group and the ACA DOW would realize very little, if anything -- but the process would drag on for several more years at least. Mrs Bush is 86 and the Creels are both 78. Anthony Morello is already in the next world.

This simply isn't the result of any clever master plan.

A big question is whether Mr Lancaster is advising his clients of their realistic prospects in this matter. But whatever he may tell them, the question is whether they will listen. I believe it's a common Catholic moral position that the tendency toward lust in youth matures into greed and an impulse toward power in old age, and this may be what's operating here. Whatever the logic of their position, Mrs Bush and the Creels wield power, at least for now, and at least until they wind up in assisted care.

Consider that, of the three ACA parishes remaining in California (a fourth is a mission and essentially inactive), two have been without rectors for an extended period -- this includes the Creels' Fountain Valley parish. My surmise is that neither of the two can attract a rector, as they can no longer pay a salary. I've got to wonder what kind of fantasy world the tiny clique that runs the ACA DOW is living in.

"Bishop" Williams continues as episcopal visitor, although he can apparently no longer be located, simply because if the ACA made a move to dissolve the DOW and merge it with the Diocese of the Missouri Valley, additional parishes, dismayed at the prospect of Strawn, would opt to leave the ACA. Since most of the equivalent APA diocese went into the REC/ACNA, an APA merger would not help this situation -- but now any merger with the APA is on hold anyhow.

There is no question that Mr Lancaster intends to drag out the legal proceedings indefinitely -- but he somehow thinks he can do this without putting the property permanently out of his clients' reach. One question would be how hospitable actuarial reality is to this plan and whether the ACA will eventually wake up to the way in which these proceedings are hastening its demise.