Judge Grants Motion For Summary Judgment Against Bush-ACA Plaintiffs

Los Angeles Superior Court Case BC485402 was brought by the Bush group, claiming to be the St Mary's vestry, and the ACA against Fr Kelley in 2012, alleging "conversion" or civil theft against him. Judge Daniel Murphy, who is Judge Strobel's successor in Department 32, brought this more or less to an end this morning after more than four years of highly vexing litigation. A list of some past shenanigans, dating only from 2013, can be found here. In Judge Murphy's words,

This action is one of four related cases concerning who controls St. Mary of the Angels Church in Hollywood, California (“St. Mary’s” or “Parish”). Defendant’s [Fr Kelley] motion for summary judgment asserts the defense of collateral estoppel, and relies heavily on the Court of Appeal decision regarding three of these cases, and the trial court decision in the Forcible Detainer Action (Case No.: 12U07875) .

He moved on to discuss the case:

A motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (CCP § 437c(c).) There is a triable issue of fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 850.) On its motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff maintains the burden that each of the elements has been proved and that there is no defense available, while on its motion the defendant must persuade the court that one of the elements in question cannot be established or that there is a complete defense. (Id.) Summary judgment motions are defined by the material allegations in the pleadings. (Baptist v. Robinson (2006) 143 Cal. App. 4th 151, 159.)

Defendant Father Kelley (hereinafter “Defendant”) moves for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiffs do not have standing to assert this action. Defendant contends that only the Vestry has standing to bring this lawsuit, and that none of the elected member of the Vestry (with the exception of one [Mrs Bush]) authorized this suit. Defendant also contends that ACA and DOW have no ownership interest in church property, and thus cannot allege damages and lack standing. Defendants argues that the Court of Appeal Decision and Forcible Detainer Action have a collateral estoppel effect entitling him to summary judgment.

Judge Murphy then decided:

Defendant’s material facts 1–5 establish that the bylaws deem St. Mary’s as the title holder of all real and personal property “Notwithstanding the Affiliation of the Parish.” Plaintiff does not dispute these facts, but rather objects to the evidence in support on the grounds that the by-laws document speaks for itself, and that the Court of Appeal opinion is not properly in the record before this Court. As discussed above, these objections are overruled. As such, the Court treats these facts as undisputed. Because St. Mary’s is the title holder of the property in dispute in this action, neither ACA nor DOW have standing in this action, regardless of whether St. Mary’s remains affiliated with ACA or DOW.

Defendant’s material fact 14 establishes that Levin, Jones, Park, Yeager, Pouncey, Hawkins, and Merrill [the elected vestry] did not retain counsel to file this suit against Defendant. This fact is supported by declarations from each of these Vestry members. Plaintiffs purport to dispute this fact, but rely on their objections to these declarations rather than their own competent evidence. As discussed above, these objections are overruled. As such, it is undisputed that excluding Bush, none of the Vestry members authorized the filing of this action.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant establishes that there is no triable issue of fact as to the standing of Plaintiffs in this matter. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

Mr Lancaster has already told the court he intends to appeal any decision that goes against him, and he will almost certainly do so here. He argued against Judge Murphy's tentative decision by reasserting his position that since the ACA had excommunicated the elected vestry, the ACA should prevail. Judge Murphy replied, "The court disagrees, and the tentative stands." So this is by no means over, although with each such defeat, Mr Lancaster's task becomes harder and harder.

Following the hearing, I was invited to a meeting with Fr Kelley, the wardens, counsel, and other interested parties. One point that was noted is that Mr Lancaster files documents running hundreds of pages in all these proceedings, although his track record isn't good, and the judges don't seem to be impressed. What motivates Mrs Bush (who was present at this morning's hearing, with "Bishop" Rhys Williams) simply isn't clear; it's hard to think it's anything other than spite at this stage.