Episcopal Church Cases 3/26/10 CA4/3

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2010 » Episcopal Church Cases 3/26/10 CA4/3

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: G042454

Case Date: 06/10/2010

Preview:Filed 3/26/10 Episcopal Church Cases CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

EPISCOPAL CHURCH CASES. JANE HYDE RASMUSSEN et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; THE REV. PRAVEEN BUNYAN et al., Real Parties in Interest.

G042454 (JCCP No. 4392) OPINION

Original proceedings; petition for a writ of mandate to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Thierry Patrick Colaw, Judge. Writ granted.

Holme Roberts & Owen, John R. Shiner, Brent E. Rychener; Horvitz & Levy, Jeremy B. Rosen, James A. Sonne; Goodwin Procter, David Booth Beers, Heather H. Anderson and Jeffrey David Skinner for Petitioners. No appearance for Respondent. Payne & Fears, Eric C. Sohlgren, Benjamin A. Nix, Daniel F. Lula, Erik M. Andersen; Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland and Robert A. Olson for Real Parties in Interest. * * I. Overview Our dissenting colleague contends that the Supreme Court did not "decide," in Episcopal Church Cases (2009) 45 Cal.4th 467 (Episcopal Church Cases I), who now actually owns the church property in dispute in this litigation, and now suggests the Supreme Court grant review to re-write its opinion to conform to his views. And indeed a re-write is what it must take, because, as shown by the plain language of the Episcopal Church Cases I opinion -- indeed the plain post-modification language of Episcopal Church Cases I -- the high court did conclusively "decide" who now owns the property. Heres just a sample: "For these reasons, we agree with the Court of Appeals conclusion (although not with all of its reasoning) that, on this record, when defendants disaffiliated from the Episcopal Church, the local church property reverted to the general church." (Episcopal Church Cases I, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 493, italics added.) "Reverted" is a past tense, already-happened, done-deal sort of word. And "this record," as the Supreme Court referred to it and as we explain below, definitely included the very letter that the local church now relies on, and relied on in the trial court to justify the defeat of the motion for judgment on the pleadings brought in the wake of Episcopal Church Cases I. It is the order denying the general churchs motion for judgment on the pleadings that we now review in this writ proceeding. (After the California Supreme Courts opinion became final, the local church filed an answer in the trial court -- within 10 days actually. Then, in the trial 2 *

court, the general church (and its subdivision, the Los Angeles Diocese), made a motion for judgment on the pleadings. As against the motion, the local church posited a March 18, 1991 letter in which the general church allegedly waived any claim to the property. In light of the March 1991 letter, the trial judge denied the general churchs motion, reasoning: "The waiver issue was not before the Court of Appeal nor the Supreme Court, was expressly or impliedly decided by either court. It is not the law of the case.") We must remember that the Supreme Court can decide any issue it pleases that is "fairly included" in the briefing. (People v. Alice (2007) 41 Cal.4th 668, 677 ["Rule 8.516(b)(1) of the California Rules of Court provides that, without permitting the parties to submit supplemental briefs, ,,[t]he Supreme Court may decide any issues that are raised or fairly included in the petition [for review] or answer."].) And, according to the Supreme Court in Episcopal Church Cases I, the issue of the actual ownership of the property was "fully briefed" in the proceeding before it: "Both lower courts also addressed the merits of the dispute over ownership of the local church -- the trial court found in favor of the local church and the Court of Appeal found clear and convincing evidence in favor of the general church. We will also address this question, which the parties as well as various amici curiae have fully briefed." (Episcopal Church Cases, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 478, italics added.)1 We have no doubt, of course, that if we are incorrect in relying on the plain language of the Supreme Courts opinion in granting the general churchs petition for writ of mandate, the high court will correct our error. Even so, secular courts, like many members of many religions, must take their direction from "authoritative texts," and in this proceeding, Episcopal Church Cases I is our authoritative text. Guided by that text, we must grant the petition. This is not a case where we must peer through a dark glass. The Supreme Court used clear, unequivocal language in its opinion, including the postmodification version of it.

1

The March 1991 letter was from the secretary to the Bishop of the Los Angeles Diocese at the time to the board of the local church concerning a property transaction. We quote the entirety of the letter anon.

3

Indeed, our opinion in this writ proceeding has already been pretty much written for us by the Supreme Court. We need only introduce the general topic addressed by a given swath of text -- and that only for reader convenience of literary continuity; the Supreme Courts opinion speaks for itself. We emphasize now that all quotations are from the post-modification version of the opinion: II. Ownership Was At Issue The Supreme Court framed the "dispute" before it expressly in terms of present ownership: "Both the local church and the general church claim ownership of the local church building and the property on which the building stands. The parties have asked the courts of this state to resolve this dispute. . . ." (Episcopal Church Cases I, supra, 45 Cal.4th at pp. 472-473, italics added.) Also: "After the disaffiliation, a further dispute arose as to who owned the church building that St. James Parish used for worship and the property on which the building stands -- the local church that left the Episcopal Church or the higher church authorities. [

Download Episcopal Church Cases 3/26/10 CA4/3.pdf