New Court Hearing

Every now and then, something brings me back to the original purpose of this blog! Ever since the May St Mary's parish meeting to vote yet again to leave the ACA, the potential for legal action against that meeting has been in the background. The plaintiffs -- I'm not completely sure just who they are at this point -- first asked for a July 17 hearing in LA Superior Court Department 97, before The Hon. Deborah Christian, at 1:30pm, to hear "Defendants' Motion for Order to Transfer Control of Property, and for Permanent Injunction. . ." Case 12U07875.

However, the group has got it moved to July 18, at 8:30am in Department 32, Judge Daniel Murphy's court, which has been handling the Rector, Wardens, and Vestry cases. I haven't been able to find a record for this case in the court system, at least so far. On January 4, Judge Murphy made his feelings about these cases clear, noting that over more than five years, there have been seven cases connected with this issue and saying, "It's ridiculous that we're continuing with this."

As far as I can see, the California appeals court ruled in 2014 that the legal vestry was the one elected in February 2012, and that the Bush group was not the legal vestry. It did send a single issue back to the trial court, to determine whether the August 2012 vote to leave the ACA was valid. While the trial court ruled it was, the appeals division of the LA Superior Court ruled it was not.

From my layman's perspective, there seem to be three separate issues here.

1. The main argument of the Bush group and the ACA, which the California appeals court definitely rejected in 2014, was that the "highest ecclesiastical authority" determined the control of the St Mary's property. The appeals court cited the precedent of the "Episcopal Church cases" in ruling that neutral principles of law, in particular the parish bylaws, determined who controlled the property.
2. The court ruled that the legal vestry was the one elected in February 2012, not the Bush group.
3. The court sent the issue of whether the August 2012 vote to leave the ACA was valid back to the trial court.

As far as I can see, the Bush group has no legal standing to bring any action against the real rector, wardens, and vestry at this point. The ACA has a difficult case if it wants to argue that it controls the property, since the appeals court has ruled that neutral principles of law establish that it does not. The ACA is left with what strikes me as a very foggy issue of whether it can object to the May 2018 vote by the parish to leave it. We'll have to see what develops.

However, my own view of the context here has changed since the 2011-12 period of optimism about Anglicanorum coetibus. Fr Kelley is now over canonical retirement age, and the best he could expect from Houston on the off chance the parish would go into the OCSP is an emeritus designation, with a new priest appointed to replace him. I would continue to expect that individual to be Fr Bartus, who had been the ACA's and the Bush group's preferred candidate as of March 2012.

In other words, after six years, the parish would be right back where it started, but with Bartus, one of the new-generation OCSP priests who couldn't even start a career in TEC. At this late date, I would be in favor of the parish winding up its affairs in some other way.

I'll be covering the July 18 hearing and subsequent developments.