Court Divides Endowment Between San Joaquin Dioceses

Posted by Kendall Harmon

A California Superior Court judge ordered that endowment assets be divided between the two dioceses of San Joaquin in a decision filed Aug. 25.

Last December, deputies to the annual convention of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin voted overwhelmingly to disaffiliate from the General Convention and to come under the primatial oversight of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone in South America. In March, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori reconstituted an Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin consisting of those clergy, parishes and individuals that did not wish to leave. The Episcopal diocese sued the Anglican diocese in June for control of the endowment.

Read it all.

Filed under: * Anglican - EpiscopalEpiscopal Church (TEC)TEC ConflictsTEC Conflicts: San Joaquin

Posted August 28, 2008 at 1:12 pm [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]

1. Hoskyns wrote:

Ingenious. Solomonic?

August 28, 1:27 pm | [comment link]
2. The young fogey wrote:

Sure, why not? Under the law both have a right to be.


August 28, 1:36 pm | [comment link]
3. Adam 12 wrote:

I wonder if this is the final word.

August 28, 1:57 pm | [comment link]
4. Paul PA wrote:

I think it’s an interim decison - I would guess that whoever expects to lose will try to get approved spending thru so that there is less left at the end

August 28, 2:02 pm | [comment link]
5. Cennydd wrote:

I am sure that we will learn more about this at our convention this October 24th-25th.

August 28, 2:02 pm | [comment link]
6. Creighton+ wrote:

This is not Solmonic, fair or good.  If you had a portion of your savings and accounts given to someone who did not deserve them, you would not be a happy camper.

Sometimes justice is blind when it tries to hard to be fair and ignores the facts on the ground.

August 28, 2:03 pm | [comment link]
7. the roman wrote:

Will Munny: Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.

August 28, 2:24 pm | [comment link]
8. libraryjim wrote:

I wonder how long before 815 appeals this one?

Jim Elliott <><

August 28, 2:42 pm | [comment link]
9. Chancellor wrote:

This is not a correct read of what happened at all. There was no “decision” by the court—-only a formal approval of the terms of a stipulation to manage the accounts jointly pending the outcome of the trial in the case. And there was no “division” of any funds. The moneys will remain in the respective accounts, and can be spent as the parties jointly agree. The accounts for the Conference Center in Oakhurst can be used routinely, without the necessity of any prior consents, on the items specified in the Center’s budget (attached to the Stipulation).

For a more accurate summary of what this Stipulation and Order accomplished, read this post.

August 28, 2:58 pm | [comment link]
10. Don R wrote:

MichaelSean, “Solomonic” like this. wink

August 28, 4:25 pm | [comment link]
11. Don R wrote:

Oops, URL mangled by editor (use ‘+’ for spaces instead of %20).  Try this.

August 28, 4:41 pm | [comment link]
12. midwestnorwegian wrote:

How about divide by percentage of ACTIVE communicants?

August 28, 5:17 pm | [comment link]
13. Katherine wrote:

Thanks, Chancellor #9.  What an outrage the TEC actions are, especially since the “diocese” and “bishop” are so irregularly constituted.

August 28, 5:34 pm | [comment link]
14. Cennydd wrote:

Does the term “House of Cards” sound familiar here?

August 28, 7:13 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.

Next entry (above): Steve Jobs obituary published by Bloomberg by mistake

Previous entry (below): In Britain, both Church and State worry about teenage stabbing

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)