OLD SAINT ANDREW'S
AND JUDGE DICKSON
2nd Edition
2nd Edition
The rector of Old St. Andrew's parish, in West Ashley, sent an email to his parishioners today about the church and the upcoming hearing before Judge Edgar Dickson of the circuit court (see yesterday's blog post). The rector wrote:
______________________________________
"Today we received word that Judge Dickson has scheduled hearings on five various motions to be heard in the State Court case between The Episcopal Church (TEC) and our Diocese. Included in these five motions to be heard is the Motion for Clarification filed on behalf of Old St. Andrew's. You will recall that the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that eight parish churches were not subject to the trust interest alleged by TEC, and that one of those eight churches named was 'St. Andrew's Parish Church, Mt. Pleasant.' There is no 'St. Andrew's Parish Church' other than Old St. Andrew's, and we have understood that Supreme Court ruling to mean that Old St. Andrew's is free and clear of any trust claim by TEC.
The fact that Judge Dickson has scheduled these five motions, including our Motion for Clarification, is very good news for us at Old St. Andrew's...."
Here is the email (click on to enlarge):
_____________________________________
Let us consider this issue again as Old St. Andrew's is asserting that it is not in the list of parishes not under TEC/TECSC trust control.
In the first place, there are six motions/petitions before Dickson, not five. Three are from DSC and three from TEC/TECSC. The three from DSC are 1-the Betterments lawsuit, 2-motion for complex case designation, and 3-the motion for clarification, of which the rector wrote today.
Now, let us go back to the state supreme court decision of August 2, 2017, to see what it says. In footnote #49, former chief justice Jean Toal lists the eight church organizations that did not accede to the Denis Canon:
1---Christ the King, Waccamaw
2---St. Matthew's, Darlington
3---St. Andrew's Church-Mt. Pleasant Land Trust
4---St. Paul's, Conway
5---Prince George Winyah, Georgetown
6---the Parish of St. Andrew's, Mt. Pleasant
7---St. John's, Florence
8---St. Matthias, Summerton
Note that St. Andrew's of Mt. Pleasant is listed twice. The first is for the St. Andrew's Land Trust. This was a separate entity formed (as I recall set up in 2010) to hold property beyond trust control of TEC. Thus, #3 and #6 are two different entities of the same parish. This leaves seven parishes on the list outside of the trust.
Now, it is possible Toal was confused and meant for #6 to be Old St. Andrew's. However, this was not what was clearly given in the text of the decision. OSA was not on the list outside the trust.
As everyone knows, I am not a lawyer, but I have looked up the SC law on correcting mistakes in state supreme court decisions. In the SC law code, Rule 60 (find it here ), if a party believes an error or mistake was made in a supreme court decision, the party may petition the supreme court for a correction of the supposed error. The supreme court would have to issue the correction itself. This petition has to be done within one year of the decision. The deadline for that was August 2, 2018. The deadline expired more than a month ago. If there were a petition for correction, I am unaware of it. To my knowledge, the rector of OSA has not mentioned a petition to the SCSC for a correction of the Aug. 2, 2017 decision. As I read the law, OSA cannot now change what the state supreme court has ruled. It ruled that OSA is under trust control of TEC/TECSC.
The rector referenced a motion for clarification before Dickson. DSC did indeed file "Motion for Clarification of Jurisdiction and for Other Relief," on March 23, 2018. The text on page 4 reads: "The Vestries and Churchwardens of the Parish of St. Andrew (commonly called 'Old St. Andrew's Parish Church'). Old St. Andrew's Parish Church has sought correction of this error with the Defendants and has received written indication of their consent to correct, but has been unable to secure agreement on a consent order."
I would have no way to know of the communications between OSA and the TEC/TECSC lawyers. However, as this laymen reads it, state law clearly says a correction has to be made by the court of issue, in this case the South Carolina Supreme Court. If a correction had been made, we would all know of it. As I understand it, a circuit court judge does not hold the authority to change a state supreme court decision, even if he or she believes an error were made in the decision. Dickson's mandate from the SCSC, as of the remit order of last November, is to implement the August 2, 2017, decision. He cannot change it.
I would have no way to know of the communications between OSA and the TEC/TECSC lawyers. However, as this laymen reads it, state law clearly says a correction has to be made by the court of issue, in this case the South Carolina Supreme Court. If a correction had been made, we would all know of it. As I understand it, a circuit court judge does not hold the authority to change a state supreme court decision, even if he or she believes an error were made in the decision. Dickson's mandate from the SCSC, as of the remit order of last November, is to implement the August 2, 2017, decision. He cannot change it.
I do not pretend to know all the details of this case and certainly not to speak for anyone but myself. But, it looks to me as if OSA is clearly one of the 29 parishes under TEC/TECSC trust control and this cannot be changed at this point. Unless there is something behind the scenes at work on this matter of which I am not aware, I fully expect Judge Dickson to dismiss DSC motion for clarification since the court lacks jurisdiction for such.
2nd Edition, 2:00 p.m., September 6.
I thought it would be interesting to go back and compare how the rector of OSA, the Rev. Marshall Huey, a former lawyer, originally interpreted the state supreme court decision. In fact, on August 3, 2017, the day after the decision, Huey sent an email to the parish. I am presenting it here. (Click on the image to get an enlargement.)
Let's look at some of the wording in this email to get an idea of how the rector viewed the court ruling at that time.
In the third paragraph:
"Therefore, the SC Supreme Court ruled that TEC DOES have a trust interest in Old St. Andrew's and the other parishes of the Diocese. The SC Supreme Court also ruled that TEC's diocese is the rightful Diocese of South Carolina."
This plainly states that the court ruled Old St. Andrew's to be under trust control of TEC. Since this is opposed to what he is now saying, I can only wonder when and why Huey changed his mind.
It is also interesting to note that on Aug. 3, 2017, Huey saw the decision as "five slightly differing opinions." DSC is now arguing that the five are so different as to be unenforceable.
What a difference a year makes.
2nd Edition, 2:00 p.m., September 6.
I thought it would be interesting to go back and compare how the rector of OSA, the Rev. Marshall Huey, a former lawyer, originally interpreted the state supreme court decision. In fact, on August 3, 2017, the day after the decision, Huey sent an email to the parish. I am presenting it here. (Click on the image to get an enlargement.)
Let's look at some of the wording in this email to get an idea of how the rector viewed the court ruling at that time.
In the third paragraph:
"Therefore, the SC Supreme Court ruled that TEC DOES have a trust interest in Old St. Andrew's and the other parishes of the Diocese. The SC Supreme Court also ruled that TEC's diocese is the rightful Diocese of South Carolina."
This plainly states that the court ruled Old St. Andrew's to be under trust control of TEC. Since this is opposed to what he is now saying, I can only wonder when and why Huey changed his mind.
It is also interesting to note that on Aug. 3, 2017, Huey saw the decision as "five slightly differing opinions." DSC is now arguing that the five are so different as to be unenforceable.
What a difference a year makes.
