A RETURN TO CHIEF JUSTICE
DONALD BEATTY'S OPINION
In my last few blog posts, I discussed Chief Justice Donald Beatty's part of the South Carolina Supreme Court decision of August 2, 2017 that recognized Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Church in South Carolina's trust control over 28 (or 29) parishes, the independence of 8 church organizations, and TECSC's possession of Camp St. Christopher. It was necessary to focus on Beatty's opinion because Diocese of South Carolina attorney and chancellor Alan Runyan made a major issue of it in his oral arguments before Judge Edgar Dickson in the court hearing of 19 November in Orangeburg. Since Runyan made so much of it, we should revisit Beatty's opinion now as a way of clarifying the issues at hand.
Runyan's remarks about Beatty's opinion may be found here on pp. 19-27. As I understand them, this is what Runyan is saying about Beatty's opinion:
---The All Saints decision is the law.
---The Dennis Canon did not create a "legally cognizable" trust under SC law.
---The Dennis Canon had no effect until parishes gave it written accession.
---As for Beatty's conclusion that the 28 parishes' express accession to the Dennis Canon was sufficient to form trusts, Runyan apparently refers to this when he says: "This sentence is ambiguous because it is completely at odds with the record and the rest of the opinion" (p. 26).
I see three major takeaways from these points:
1) --- Runyan seems to be implying that Beatty's opinion is self-contradictory from the earlier text, and illogical, or at least inconsistent. Thus, Beatty's conclusion should not be taken by itself.
2) --- Instead, the court "must discern intent from all parts of opinion, not an isolated part" (p. 26). Thus, a judge must discern the meaning of an entire text, not just the conclusions of the text.
3) --- "No accession facts before the Court" (p. 25). In other words, there is not sufficient evidence in the record before the court that the parishes acceded to the Dennis Canon.
Now, let us consider each of these three points.
1-The meaning of Beatty's opinion. The text is relatively short. Find the pages in my last blog posting here . Beatty's language is perfectly clear, precise and concise, and, I would add, logical and reasonable. Here are Beatty's main points in his opinion:
---"I would find those parishes that did not expressly accede to the Dennis Canon should retain ownership of the disputed real and personal property."
(The 8 church organizations that had not acceded to the Dennis Canon.)
---"In fact, I look no further than our state's property and trust laws to determine whether the purported trust created by the Dennis Canon comports with the requirements of either an express or constructive trust."
(Follows All Saints decision.)
---"Assuming that each parish acceded in writing, I would agree. In my view, the Dennis Canon had no effect until acceded to in writing by the individual parishes."
(Follows All Saints decision.)
---"I would find the parishes that did not expressly accede to the Dennis Canon cannot be divested of their property. Because there was no writing purporting to create a trust and they took no other legal action to transfer ownership of their property, I believe these parishes merely promised allegiance to the hierarchical national church."
(Trust cannot be imposed by external party. Settlor must make trust by explicit written means. The 8 religious organizations made no accession in writing to the Dennis Canon.)
---"I agree with the majority as to the disposition of the remaining parishes because their express accession to the Dennis Canon was sufficient to create an irrevocable trust."
(The 28 parishes made written accessions to the Dennis Canon
with the effect of forming unbreakable trusts. This follows state laws on trusts; thus, no inconsistency with All Saints.)
In sum, Beatty says that the All Saints decision is the guide, in that, in South Carolina, an external party cannot impose a trust on a deed holder unilaterally. The owner must make written statement to set up a trust for another party. With that in mind, Beatty went on to say 28 parishes did indeed set up trusts for the Episcopal Church. They did this by making explicit accession to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church without condition or limitation. The Dennis Canon was a canon of the Episcopal Church. By declaring accession to all of the canons, the 28 parishes adopted the Dennis Canon which included trust control of the local property for the beneficiaries, the Episcopal Church and its diocese. So, when the parishes' gave written accessions to the C and C of TEC they set up trusts for TEC. As contracts, these trusts were not revocable by one party. The parishes may later say they were withdrawing their trusts, but they could not do so unilaterally under state law.
This is my understanding of Beatty's opinion in the August 2, 2017 SCSC decision. I see nothing ambiguous, contradictory, or illogical about it. It is perfectly reasoned and reasonable. It follows exactly on state laws concerning property and trusts. Any assertion that Beatty's opinion is too problematical to be enforced is completely without merit.
2)-On the second point, that a judge "must discern intent from all parts of opinion." I have already discussed this, in my last two blog postings. Our judicial system has always held that conclusions of a supreme court decision are final. How the justices arrived at their decision(s) is irrelevant to the law. Anyway, it would be impossible for judges to interpret the meaning of a whole text of any supreme court decision. I see this as an absurd assertion.
3)-On the "facts." As I see it, this was really the most important point of Runyan's argument in the hearing. He seemed to be saying there were no supporting facts to prove that the 28 parishes acceded to the Dennis Canon as the Church lawyers were claiming. If they did not give explicit written statement for a trust, they did not in fact make a trust under SC law.
The question then becomes, In what form does a written statement setting up a trust have to be?
When the five justices of the SCSC were going over this, four of them agreed that 28 of the 36 parishes had indeed formed trusts over their properties for the Episcopal Church and its diocese. Pleicones, Hearn, Beatty, and Kittredge all agreed. Only Toal dissented. Of the four, one, Kittredge, went on to say that the 28 parishes revoked their accessions to the Dennis Canons thereby freeing themselves from the obligations of the trust. That left a majority of three justices agreeing that the 28 remained under trust control of TEC. Thus, eighty percent of the SCSC justices agreed that by giving written accession to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, the 28 had in fact formed trusts for the Church. They did not have to make an explicit statement that they were setting up trusts under the Dennis Canon because that was covered in the accession to the "canons" of the Church. The Dennis Canon was, of course, one of the canons they were accepting. The terms of the Dennis Canon contained the trusts. By acceding to the canon, they acceded to the trusts.
The four justices did not pull their opinions out of thin air. They considered a mountain of evidence provided by the Church lawyers showing in detail how each parish had acceded to the Dennis Canon. This evidence was presented in the circuit court trial of 2014 and again to the state supreme court in 2015. It is a matter of public record. The full body of information is too voluminous to give here. Instead, I am providing some of the summary pages from "The Record on Appeal" that went to the SCSC (click on image for enlargement):
The pages provide the salient facts about these parishes' accession to the canons of the Episcopal Church, including the Dennis Canon, and to the trusts contained therein.
In conclusion, I would emphasize two points coming from all of this:
---Chief Justice Beatty's opinion is soundly constructed and his conclusions are based on facts. There is no ambiguity or inconsistency in his opinion; and, therefore, Judge Dickson should consider Beatty's conclusion as the final word of his opinion.
---The charge that there is insufficient evidence the 28 parishes set up trusts for the Episcopal Church has no substance. There is in fact a great deal of supporting evidence that they acceded to the Dennis Canon which included a trust. They set up trusts when they adhered to the Canon.
Bottom line--- Judge Edgar Dickson has a clear statement from the majority of the South Carolina Supreme Court justices that 28 parishes made trusts giving the Episcopal Church beneficiary control over the local properties. He should implement the SCSC decision as soon as possible.
---"I would find those parishes that did not expressly accede to the Dennis Canon should retain ownership of the disputed real and personal property."
(The 8 church organizations that had not acceded to the Dennis Canon.)
---"In fact, I look no further than our state's property and trust laws to determine whether the purported trust created by the Dennis Canon comports with the requirements of either an express or constructive trust."
(Follows All Saints decision.)
---"Assuming that each parish acceded in writing, I would agree. In my view, the Dennis Canon had no effect until acceded to in writing by the individual parishes."
(Follows All Saints decision.)
---"I would find the parishes that did not expressly accede to the Dennis Canon cannot be divested of their property. Because there was no writing purporting to create a trust and they took no other legal action to transfer ownership of their property, I believe these parishes merely promised allegiance to the hierarchical national church."
(Trust cannot be imposed by external party. Settlor must make trust by explicit written means. The 8 religious organizations made no accession in writing to the Dennis Canon.)
---"I agree with the majority as to the disposition of the remaining parishes because their express accession to the Dennis Canon was sufficient to create an irrevocable trust."
(The 28 parishes made written accessions to the Dennis Canon
with the effect of forming unbreakable trusts. This follows state laws on trusts; thus, no inconsistency with All Saints.)
In sum, Beatty says that the All Saints decision is the guide, in that, in South Carolina, an external party cannot impose a trust on a deed holder unilaterally. The owner must make written statement to set up a trust for another party. With that in mind, Beatty went on to say 28 parishes did indeed set up trusts for the Episcopal Church. They did this by making explicit accession to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church without condition or limitation. The Dennis Canon was a canon of the Episcopal Church. By declaring accession to all of the canons, the 28 parishes adopted the Dennis Canon which included trust control of the local property for the beneficiaries, the Episcopal Church and its diocese. So, when the parishes' gave written accessions to the C and C of TEC they set up trusts for TEC. As contracts, these trusts were not revocable by one party. The parishes may later say they were withdrawing their trusts, but they could not do so unilaterally under state law.
This is my understanding of Beatty's opinion in the August 2, 2017 SCSC decision. I see nothing ambiguous, contradictory, or illogical about it. It is perfectly reasoned and reasonable. It follows exactly on state laws concerning property and trusts. Any assertion that Beatty's opinion is too problematical to be enforced is completely without merit.
2)-On the second point, that a judge "must discern intent from all parts of opinion." I have already discussed this, in my last two blog postings. Our judicial system has always held that conclusions of a supreme court decision are final. How the justices arrived at their decision(s) is irrelevant to the law. Anyway, it would be impossible for judges to interpret the meaning of a whole text of any supreme court decision. I see this as an absurd assertion.
3)-On the "facts." As I see it, this was really the most important point of Runyan's argument in the hearing. He seemed to be saying there were no supporting facts to prove that the 28 parishes acceded to the Dennis Canon as the Church lawyers were claiming. If they did not give explicit written statement for a trust, they did not in fact make a trust under SC law.
The question then becomes, In what form does a written statement setting up a trust have to be?
When the five justices of the SCSC were going over this, four of them agreed that 28 of the 36 parishes had indeed formed trusts over their properties for the Episcopal Church and its diocese. Pleicones, Hearn, Beatty, and Kittredge all agreed. Only Toal dissented. Of the four, one, Kittredge, went on to say that the 28 parishes revoked their accessions to the Dennis Canons thereby freeing themselves from the obligations of the trust. That left a majority of three justices agreeing that the 28 remained under trust control of TEC. Thus, eighty percent of the SCSC justices agreed that by giving written accession to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, the 28 had in fact formed trusts for the Church. They did not have to make an explicit statement that they were setting up trusts under the Dennis Canon because that was covered in the accession to the "canons" of the Church. The Dennis Canon was, of course, one of the canons they were accepting. The terms of the Dennis Canon contained the trusts. By acceding to the canon, they acceded to the trusts.
The four justices did not pull their opinions out of thin air. They considered a mountain of evidence provided by the Church lawyers showing in detail how each parish had acceded to the Dennis Canon. This evidence was presented in the circuit court trial of 2014 and again to the state supreme court in 2015. It is a matter of public record. The full body of information is too voluminous to give here. Instead, I am providing some of the summary pages from "The Record on Appeal" that went to the SCSC (click on image for enlargement):
The pages provide the salient facts about these parishes' accession to the canons of the Episcopal Church, including the Dennis Canon, and to the trusts contained therein.
In conclusion, I would emphasize two points coming from all of this:
---Chief Justice Beatty's opinion is soundly constructed and his conclusions are based on facts. There is no ambiguity or inconsistency in his opinion; and, therefore, Judge Dickson should consider Beatty's conclusion as the final word of his opinion.
---The charge that there is insufficient evidence the 28 parishes set up trusts for the Episcopal Church has no substance. There is in fact a great deal of supporting evidence that they acceded to the Dennis Canon which included a trust. They set up trusts when they adhered to the Canon.
Bottom line--- Judge Edgar Dickson has a clear statement from the majority of the South Carolina Supreme Court justices that 28 parishes made trusts giving the Episcopal Church beneficiary control over the local properties. He should implement the SCSC decision as soon as possible.
