California Episcopal Church cases back before State Supreme Court: The Church of England Newspaper, June 18, 2010 p 6.

First published in The Church of England Newspaper.

The California Supreme Court has agreed to review a March 26 decision by the state’s Fourth Appellate Court of Appeals that held the congregation of St James in Newport Beach was not entitled to present a defence to the Diocese of Los Angeles’ allegations that it was the rightful owner of the sea-side parish properties.

The unanimous June 9 decision by the Supreme Court to examine the lower’ court ruling will likely add several more years and millions of dollars in the six-year-old battle between the breakaway congregation and the diocese.

Although the California Supreme Court agrees to hear only five per cent of the petitions submitted for its review, the decision to hear the Episcopal Church case was not unexpected, as the dissenting judge, the Hon Richard Fybel stated that his two appellate colleagues’ decision in favour of the diocese was “unprecedented and without any basis in law.”

The decision by the court to impose a sentence before a trial was conducted was “revolutionary,” he said, adding that “I can write with certainty that this is the only case in the history of California where entry of judgment has been ordered upon overruling” a defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff’s pleading.

Judge Fybel stated the ruling was so outrageous that it “can best be resolved by a grant of review” by the state’s highest court. The majority decision noted “we have no doubt, of course, that if we are incorrect in relying on the plain language of the Supreme Court’s opinion in granting the general church’s petition for writ of mandate, the high court will correct our error.”

The chancellor for the Los Angeles diocese, John Shiner told the Episcopal News Service the Supreme Court’s decision was merely a “procedural issue.”

“We believe that the decision was clear and the California Supreme Court concluded that the property should be returned to us. We asked the trial court to enter judgment in our favour. The other side disagrees and believes they should be able to pursue the matter further.

“We went to the Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal agreed with us that a judgment should be entered now. So they went to the Supreme Court, the higher court and asked them to review whether or not the judgment should be entered at this point,” Mr Shiner said.

St James’s lead attorney, Eric Sohlgren, said his client was “extremely pleased that the California Supreme Court has heard our plea to restore justice and fairness to this case.”

In a statement sent to The Church of England Newspaper, Mr Sohlgren said “St James will now have an opportunity to argue on behalf of all Californians that people should not be deprived of their property without getting the opportunity to defend their case in a court of law. These principles go to the very heart of what Americans hold dear under our Constitution.”