FEDERAL JUDGE ISSUES ORDER FAVORABLE 

TO EPISCOPAL CHURCH SIDE

Yesterday, April 16, 2018, Judge Richard Mark Gergel, of the U.S. District Court in Charleston issued "Order and Opinion" making judgments on several motions that had been entered by both sides. This is in the case of vonRosenberg v. Lawrence that began in the federal court in March of 2013. In this, the Episcopal Church bishop essentially asked the federal court to recognize him, and not Mark Lawrence, as the rightful bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina. This was based on the Lanham Act that protects federally registered trademarks.

Judge Gergel made several major points in his ruling of yesterday as he:

1---rejected DSC's request for a stay pending the U.S. Supreme Court decision on whether to grant cert. 

The losing parties' [DSC] decision to petition for a writ of certiorari does not place the South Carolina Supreme Court's decision into abeyance. Nor does it provide any reason for this Court to abstain from hearing any issue properly before this Court. (p. 6)

Defendants' petition for review of the final judgment of the South Carolina Supreme Court certainly does not create a basis for abstention [of this court. (p. 11)

2---recognized TEC/TECSC's rights to press trademark infringement and false claims against DSC, the parishes of DSC, and the Trustees corporation of DSC.

The Court therefore grants Plaintiffs' [TEC/TECSC] motions insofar as they seek to assert trademark infringement and false advertising claims against the Lawrence Diocese, parishes associated with the Lawrence Diocese, and the Trustees Corporation. (p. 7)

3---backed away from judicial intrusion into religion [the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids the state from interfering in the internal working of a religious institution]. Therefore, Gergel refused jurisdiction over TEC/TECSC's trust claims. In other words, he shied away from the property issue.

Entry of a judicial order telling 28 congregations whom they may or may not elect to their respective parish vestries would foster excessive judicial entanglement with religion. (p. 8)

declaring whether a vestry holding real property in trust met its fiduciary obligation need not involve any judicial entanglement with religion. (p. 9)

This Court cannot involve itself in determining exactly what religious services are or are not allowable in various parish churches across the Lowcountry. (p. 9)

TEC asks the Court to declare parish vestrymen unfit for lay ministry because they allow schismatics to use church property. The Court cannot do that. (p. 10)

The Court therefore denies Plaintiffs' motions insofar as they seek to assert trust law claims against parishes associated with the Lawrence Diocese. (p. 11)

4---although Gergel denied TEC/TECSC's request for aid in trust enforcement, he took the extraordinary step of strongly suggesting, not once but twice, that TEC/TECSC take legal possession of the properties in question. To me, this was the most surprising and potentially important part of yesterday's ruling. It sounded to me as if Gergel all but told TEC to get possession of the 28 parishes.

TEC could take legal possession of the parish property held in trust for its benefit, rather than asking a federal court to supervise the local congregation's use [of] the property. (p. 9)

He even told TEC/TECSC how to do this:

Again, the better solution to the problem might be for TEC to take possession of the properties, rather than asking a federal court to assist the management of the properties. And the better forum for enforcement of the South Carolina Supreme Court's decision concerning TEC's real property rights is the court that received the remittitur, the Dorchester County Court of Common Pleas...

In summary, on one hand Gergel granted TEC/TECSC's motion for action to press claims on trademark infringement against DSC, its parishes, and its Trustees; and on the other hand, he denied TEC/TECSC's motion for enforcement of their trust interests (property). However he plainly urged TEC/TECSC to pursue enforcement of their property claims in the circuit court pursuant of the state supreme court decision. To Gergel, DSC's appeal to SCOTUS was all but irrelevant in this case.

Altogether, Gergel's order of yesterday is a significant court victory for the Episcopal Church side. Thus, in the view of the federal judge, who owns the properties of the 28 parishes is not an issue. It has been settled and ought to be enforced.

I am wondering if, coming at this time, Gergel might be sending a message to the U.S. Supreme Court. His remarks on governmental intrusion into religion could be taken that way. 

We will have to wait and see how the TEC/TECSC lawyers respond to what appears to me to be this federal judge's virtual urging that they gain possession of the properties. If they do respond, I suppose the next step would be for them to go to the circuit court of Dorchester County with the proper motions to obtain physical possession of the 28 (actually 29) parish properties.

Judging from yesterday's decision, the future looks good for the Church side in the federal court. 

Find Judge Gergel's April 16 decision here .