LA Times: State high court to review ruling on churches

Posted by Kendall Harmon

Diocesan attorney John R. Shiner said Tuesday he was confident that the state Supreme Court would affirm the appellate court's decision, which was unanimous.

Eric Sohlgren, lead attorney for St. James, said he was encouraged by the high court's decision to review the case, and said it could affect trial proceedings for other churches embroiled in similar property disputes.

"We think it's an important step toward calming the legal turmoil created by the appellate court decision," Sohlgren said.

Read it all.

Filed under: * Anglican - EpiscopalEpiscopal Church (TEC)TEC ConflictsTEC Conflicts: Los Angeles* Culture-WatchLaw & Legal Issues

Posted September 13, 2007 at 9:38 am

To comment on this article: Go to Article View

The URL for this article is

1. Irenaeus wrote:

Does anyone know how much per hour John Shiner is charging the Diocese of Los Angeles in this protracted lawsuit? Is his billing rate likely to be more or less than $800 per hour? Think about these costs the next time you hear Bp. Bruno, KJS, or other leading reappraisers talk about “mission.”

September 13, 10:35 am | [comment link]
2. johnd wrote:

Glad to see they use biblical authority as the lead reason with the “other” issue as a corollary.
Any idea on a time-frame for a ruling?

September 13, 10:37 am | [comment link]
3. Jeff in VA wrote:

Johnd (#2),

The California Rules of Court don’t put a deadline on consideration, but the way I read it, the briefs will be due within 30 days (petitioner), 60 days (opposing party), 80 days (petitioner’s reply), and 110 days (amici).

The Court can also request oral argument, but there’s no timeline for that in the Rules either.

September 13, 11:32 am | [comment link]
4. Fred wrote:

#! - We wouldn’t have to be paying John Shiner a penny if the renegade churches hadn’t tried to steal our property. And whatever they’re paying him, it’s worth every penny, he’s a fine lawyer who most likely will win again on appeal.

September 13, 3:29 pm | [comment link]
5. Sarah1 wrote:

RE: “We wouldn’t have to be paying John Shiner a penny if the renegade churches hadn’t tried to steal our property.”


[insert war whoops, paint faces with war paint]

I love Fred’s use of language.  ; > )

September 13, 3:36 pm | [comment link]
6. Kevin S. wrote:

And, from another point of view Fred, the L.A. Diocese would not have to pay John Shiner a penny if the diocese had not tried to steal our property.  Remember, this is the same diocese who gave St. James a written promise several years back that they would not try to lay claim to the new buildings that were being constructed at St. James.

Let me assume you own a home.  Your name is on the deed, and you purchased the home and have paid for its upkeep with no help from your church.  If you left your church for another, but your former church said they passed a rule (after you bought your house and became a member of this church) that all real property belonging to its members is held in trust for the church, would you just give them the keys to your house and car, all the property in your house, and everything in your bank accounts?  Well of course not, that would be stupid, unfair, and probably illegal, right?

September 13, 4:50 pm | [comment link]
7. Irenaeus wrote:

Kevin [#6]: Very well put.

September 13, 6:50 pm | [comment link]
8. Sue Martinez wrote:

Well, Fred, if the diocese has owned my church all along, when can I expect to see a refund of the money I have been donating for the last three years for its maintenance?

September 13, 7:39 pm | [comment link]
9. chips wrote:

Look whoever is writing the talking points for the leftists should delete the words steal and theft because it just aint so.  These are complicated legal issues involving property rights between persons in whom title rests and who paid for property and its upkeep vs an entity that claims ownership of the property because it says it owns the property.  I do not know which way the California courts will go - but I am quite confident that no DA would file charges against any departing parish vestry. Falsely accusing a person of a crime is slander or libel.

September 15, 9:16 am | [comment link]
10. Juandeveras wrote:

I seem to recall the original decision on this matter was based on a lot of creative thinking by David Booth Beers [ a lawyer, not a brewer, whose wife edits “Forward Day by Day” for the ECUSA ] and Friends. It relied, if memory serves, on a lot of Presbyterian Church cases, a funky church of Indian origen and a suggestion as to how Englishmen would conduct themselves under varying church-related circumstances. A lot of baloney worthy of being cleansed and made transparent.

September 16, 1:00 am | [comment link]

© 2014 Kendall S. Harmon. All rights reserved.

For original material from Titusonenine (such as articles and commentary by Dr. Harmon) permission to copy and distribute free of charge is granted, provided this notice, the logo, and the web site address are visible on all copies. For permission for use in for-profit publications, please email KSHarmon[at]mindspring[dot]com

<< Back to main page

<< Return to Mobile view (headlines)