REVISITING THE SOUTH CAROLINA
SUPREME COURT DECISION

The major dispute between the two warring dioceses right now is the meaning of the South Carolina Supreme Court decision of August 2, 2017. Therefore, it is useful at this point to revisit that decision and examine what it does and does not say. 

First a brief summary of events about the decision. On Aug. 2, 2017, the SCSC issued the ruling. On Sept. 1, the Diocese of South Carolina appealed to SCSC for a rehearing. The SCSC denied a rehearing on Nov. 17. On Feb. 9, 2018, the DSC petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, that is, for SCOTUS to review the SCSC decision. On June 7, 2018, SCOTUS denied DSC's petition. This left the SCSC decision as the law to be enforced. SCSC remitted the decision to the court of origin, the circuit court of Dorchester County, for enactment.

For a long time now, DSC has carried out a robust public relations campaign to invalidate and de-legitimize the SCSC decision. This has included educational courses, letters to the editor, blogs, media, press releases, sermons, talks, and the like. The central message of this massive campaign is that the SCSC decision was hopelessly divided, confused and ultimately "unenforceable." The charge of DSC is that since the SCSC really made no decision, the status quo ante-decision remains in effect indefinitely. Thus, DSC gets to keep all that it had. The Episcopal Church gets nothing.

It is essential then that we revisit the SCSC decision. Is DSC correct that it is too divided to be coherent and is therefore unenforceable?

The decision is freely available on the Internet. Find it here . 

First, it lists the 36 parishes involved as plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the Episcopal Church.

Then, it says the court reversed in part and affirmed in part (the circuit court decision of Feb. 3, 2015 that was on appeal). So, the question is, What did the SCSC reverse and what did it affirm?

Owing to the size, complexity, and importance of this case, the five justices felt it important to write individual opinions. The lead (majority) opinion was by Justice Costa Pleicones, pp. 3-20. Justice Kaye Hearn's decision is pp. 21-35; Chief Justice Donald Beatty, pp. 36-38; Justice John Kittredge, pp. 39-47; and former chief justice Jean Toal, pp. 48-77. Unfortunately, the decision does not present page numbers.

Presenting five opinions does not necessarily mean lack of a majority opinion. In fact, there are several decisions, all made by majority votes. They are well summarized by Toal on the last two pages. We need not go any farther in looking for what the decision says. The whole 77-page paper is reduced to two last pages. Toal wrote:

 As I stated at the outset, this is unfortunately a difficult case leading us to five different, strongly-held opinions. Because we all write separately, my summary of my understanding of the Court's holdings is as follows. A majority of the Court---consisting of Chief Justice Beatty, Justice Kittredge, and me---agree that "Pearson" and "All Saints" (and their progeny) remain good law in this state, and that in secular church disputes, our state courts should apply neutral principles of law to resolve the case.

This means the court followed neutral principles in making its decision.

Thus, the result reached on title is:  1)with regard to the eight church organizations which did not accede to the Dennis Canon, Chief Justice Beatty, Justice Kittredge, and I would hold that title remains in the eight plaintiff church organizations;

This means the court ruled that the eight parishes listed are outside of the trust control of the Episcopal Church.

2) with regard to the twenty-eight church organizations which acceded to the Dennis Canon, a majority consisting of Chief Justice Beatty, Justice Hearn, and Acting Justice Pleicones would hold that a trust in favor of the national church is imposed on the property and therefore, title is in the national church;

This means the court ruled that the 28 parishes listed remain under trust control of the Episcopal Church.

and 3)with regard to Camp St. Christopher, Chief Justice Beatty, Justice Hearn, and Acting Justice Pleicones would hold title is in the trustee corporation for the benefit of the associated diocese [TECSC], whereas Justice Kittredge and I would hold that the trustee corporation holds title for the benefit of the disassociated diocese.

This means the court ruled that Camp St. Christopher is held by the Episcopal Church diocese.

As to the second issue on appeal, involving the plaintiffs' claims for service mark infringement, Chief Justice Beatty, Justice Kittredge, and I would find the marks are validly registered under state law, but leave the ultimate resolution of the parties' conflicting claims to the pending federal case.

This means the court affirmed the circuit court decision leaving the legal entity of the pre-schism diocese with the disassociated diocese (DSC). However, the court recognized that this issue would ultimately be decided by the federal court (the U.S. District Court in Charleston). 

Thus, to summarize, the SCSC overturned the lower court's decision on the properties of the 28 parishes and the Camp and affirmed the lower court's decision on the ownership of the old diocese. This is not a conflicted, indiscernible, or unenforceable decision, quite the contrary.

The SC supreme court issued four very clear, simple decisions:

1-the 8 parishes remain outside Episcopal Church control;

2-the 28 parishes remain under Episcopal Church control;

3-Camp St. Christopher is under control of the Episcopal Church diocese;

4-the ownership of the pre-schism diocese remains with DSC pending the outcome of the federal court case.

The SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017, could not be any plainer. There is no confusion, contradiction, or conflict. The majority decisions are obvious, unavoidable and certainly enforceable. 

The SCSC has remitted its decision to the circuit court of Dorchester County to be enforced. The Church diocese has asked the judge there, Edgar Dickson, to appoint a Special Master to oversee the enforcement of property transfers. We are awaiting the judge's response.

Before we leave this topic, it is important to go back over the five justices' views of the Dennis Canon and the disposal of the 36 plaintiff parishes. How much agreement was there among the justices on these points?

On the Dennis Canon, four of the five justices agreed that the Dennis Canon went into effect in South Carolina. Pleicones, Hearn, Kittredge, and Beatty all agreed on that. Only Toal refused. Thus, on the crucial issue of the Dennis Canon, there was 80% agreement. Kittredge, however, refused to join the majority because he reasoned that the parishes that acceded to the Canon had the right to revoke their accession, and they did in the schism. Pleicones, Hearn, and Beatty all agreed that the parishes did not have the right to revoke their accession. This resulted in the majority decision in favor of TEC. There was nothing unclear about that.

On which parishes were in the 28 under TEC control and which were not under TEC control, there was unanimous agreement. In fact, Toal, the lone hold-out against TEC, listed the eight parishes to remain outside TEC control on pp. 52-53:

The defendants [TEC] do not reference any documentation of accession (and I have found none in the record) for the following plaintiff parishes: Christ the King, Waccamaw; St. Matthews Church, Darlington; St. Andrews Church--Mt. Pleasant Land Trust; St. Paul's Episcopal Church of Conway, the Episcopal Church of the Parish of Prince George Winyah, Georgetown; the Parish of St. Andrew, Mt. Pleasant; St. John's Episcopal Church of Florence; and St. Matthias Episcopal Church, Summerton.

Thus, the SCSC clearly listed the churches outside TEC control as Christ the King, Pawleys Island; St. Matthew's, Darlington; St. Andrew's, Mt. Pleasant; St. Paul's of Conway; Prince George Winyah, Georgetown; St. John's of Florence; and St. Matthias, Summerton.


Finally, what are we to conclude about DSC's present campaign to discredit the SCSC decision? What about DSC's charges that the ruling is conflicted, fractured, confused, contradictory, and unenforceable? A simple review of the decision itself belies all of this propaganda campaign against the decision. As we have just seen, the SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017 is anything but what DSC is saying. It is as plain and clear as imaginable and eminently eligible for enforcement which is just a matter of time.