First, the long awaited ruling with regard to who really is the representative of the corporate sole will have t owait for another day. Actually, the motion for summary adjudication was postponed until March 11, 2009. According to those in the know this is simply a housekeeping chore by the courts. It manages their dockets and generally without explanation. That happened, no explanation, this time as well. In my line of work I beleive that sometimes, even though I am just the engineer, I want to beleive I am the conductor. The fact is the conductor will manage the train. We therefore pray and wait.
The second issue is the final determination/written ruling from the California Supreme Court on the issue of St. James, Newport Beach property. They slightly modified their ruling and in part here is the modification:
The opinion herein, filed on January 5, 2009, and appearing at 45 Cal.4th 467, is modified as follows: The first sentence in the second full paragraph on page 473 is modified to read:"Applying the neutral principles of law approach, we conclude, on this record, that the general church, not the local church, owns the property in question."
The final line in the modifications cited by the court goes like this:
"This modification does not affect the judgment."
There had been a challenge to review the finds by several schismatics but the courts would have none of that nonsense. Here is the read :
The third full paragraph on page 476 is modified to read: "We granted review to decide whether this action is subject to the special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 and to address the merits of the church property dispute."The first full paragraph on page 478, under "B.," is modified to read: "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. We will first consider what method the secular courts of this state should use to resolve disputes over church property. We will then apply that method to analyze the dispute of this case." The first sentence of the first full paragraph on page 493 is modified to read: "For these reasons, we agree with the Court of Appeal's 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."emphasis added.
There you have it. Keep us in your prayers as the March 11 date slips up on us like the tule fog in February.
