PARTIES TO ARGUE whether, because all members were not solicited, Corporations Code section 9413 invalidated the August 2012 Vestry vote.Since this is an appeal, the appellants must argue that Judge Strobel erred in interpreting the law, and any facts are irrelevant. The Bush group's argument in 2015 was that, when Mrs Bush refused to surrender the keys to the parish building on June 13, 2012, as instructed by the judge, the legal vestry, when it retreated to a conference room at a local restaurant to determine a course of action, held an illegal board meeting in violation of California Corporations Code section 9413, since they didn't notify Mrs Bush that they were doing this.
Judge Strobel didn't buy this argument. I'm simply going to reprint part of my post from September 27, 2015, covering how this matter came up in the original trial:
One of the issues that Messrs Lancaster and Anastasia repeatedly brought up in the latest trial was an "illegal vestry meeting" on the afternoon of June 13, 2012. Several elected vestry members provided additional information on what happened that day in their testimony there. (I am continuing with a policy of not mentioning their names here to avoid the real possibility of harassment or reprisal against them.) June 13, 2012 was the day that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ann Jones dissolved the temporary restraining order against Fr Kelley and unspecified "John Doe" members of the parish, which had been obtained by Mr Lancaster on behalf of the ACA, Mrs Bush, and Anthony Morello on May 25, 2012. This turned out to be the first part of the legal quagmire that has nearly destroyed the parish in subsequent years: while Judge Jones dissolved the TRO and ordered the dissidents occupying the building to return the keys to Fr Kelley, she refused to enforce the order on the basis that this would involve her further in an ecclesiastical dispute.Mr Lancaster no longer represents the Bush group in this appeal. They have hired other counsel. At one point, the new counsel asked for extra time to prepare their appeal brief. I'm told Mr Lengyel-Leahu, the vestry's counsel, remarked "It looks like they finally figured out what they've gotten themselves into."As a result, the elected vestry returned to the building only to be turned away, apparently by Mrs Bush and other dissidents, who continued to occupy the building. (Mrs Bush in her September 24 testimony at the latest trial stated that she was on the premises on a daily basis at this time.) I assume they refused Judge Jones's order on the advice of Mr Lancaster, but this is probably covered by attorney-client privilege, and we'll never know.
At this point, Fr Kelley, elected vestry members, and other parishioners, a total of 12-15 people according to testimony, quickly had to develop a Plan B. The process of doing this, according to Mr Lancaster at the latest trial, immediately became an illegal special meeting of the vestry, as no notice of it was provided to Mrs Bush, who was barricaded in the church building only a short distance away.
Since Anthony Morello had already appointed a new alternate-universe "vestry" as of May 31, 2012, Mrs Bush at that time was, by her testimony, a member of the elected vestry, which had been turned away from the parish building by none other than Mrs Bush, who was also the senior warden of the appointed vestry in possession of the building. However, any attempt by the elected vestry to figure out what to do now would, according to Mr Lancaster, be illegal due to a lack of notice to Mrs Bush about this "special vestry meeting".
According to testimony, the vestry and other supporters were able to meet in the conference room of a local restaurant to consider their options. I assume that a call was placed to the elected vestry's counsel, although again, this is probably covered by attorney-client privilege, and we'll never know exactly what was discussed. However, the outcome was a handwritten statement signed by the elected vestry members who were present.
I will attend the oral arguments and report.
