TEC/TECSC LAWYERS FILE REPLY
TO DSC'S RESPONSE
Today, April 17, 2019, the lawyers for the Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Church in South Carolina filed a Reply to the Diocese of South Carolina's Response to TEC/TECSC's March 20, 2019 petition to the South Carolina Supreme Court for a Writ of Mandamus. Find the Reply here . The Writ would direct circuit court judge Edgar Dickson to implement the SCSC decision of August 2, 2017 in which the high court held that 29 of the 36 parishes in the suit were property of the Episcopal Church and that Camp St. Christopher was property of the Church diocese. Dickson has had the SCSC decision before him for 15 months and has failed to take any action on it. Find this blog's discussion of TEC/TECSC's petition here .
On April 11, the DSC lawyers filed with the SCSC a response. Find this blog's piece on the DSC response here .
TEC/TECSC's filing today is in reply to the DSC response. Find the TECSC article about today's paper here .
In today's reply, the Church lawyers raise several important points:
1) DSC has already taken the position that TEC/TECSC owns the parish properties in question. They did so in their Betterments lawsuit filed in the circuit court last November. The Betterments law says that people who occupy property that they believe they own but that really belongs to someone else are due reimbursement by the property owner for the improvements they made on the property. By filing the Betterments suit, DSC recognized that the Episcopal Church owned the parish properties.
2) The City of Rock Hill v. Thompson case of 2002 is not appropriate to the present case because the matter at hand is the circuit judge's ministerial duty to carry out the law that the SCSC has handed down in its decision.
3) The church case has been adjudicated and the SCSC decision has become final. The case is closed and cannot be re-adjudicated in the courts.
4) Most importantly, the delay in the implementation of the SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017, is doing harm to the Church. This is the strongest argument the TEC/TECSC lawyers are making now:
This is a plain admission that they are not holding and protecting the property for Petitioners [TEC/TECSC], but rather are improperly using it for their own purposes. That property includes unique real estate, historic buildings, and artifacts that cannot be replaced, along with accounts held in trust that are being depleted as this litigation is being improperly prolonged. Under these circumstances, Petitioners [TEC/TECSC] should not be relegated to continue to wait for their chances to appeal---while the Circuit Court delays and relitigates the merits, exceeding its jurisdiction on remittitur and failing to perform its ministerial duty to enforce this Court's mandate.
It has now been more than 20 months since this Court issued its final and dispositive decision on August 2, 2017. Petitioners are duly entitled to the transfer of the property that they have been awarded and that is being misused and depleted by Intervenors [DSC].
Thus, TEC/TECSC is making the strong case that the SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017 must be implemented soon not only because it is the law of the land but also because inaction is doing actual harm to the properties and their legal owners, TEC/TECSC.
It is unclear what happens next in this matter. DSC could file a reply to the reply. Judge Dickson could make some sort of statement in his defense. The SCSC justices could proceed and issue a ruling on TEC/TECSC's petition for a Writ. Whatever, I will report developments as I learn of them.
TEC/TECSC's filing today is in reply to the DSC response. Find the TECSC article about today's paper here .
In today's reply, the Church lawyers raise several important points:
1) DSC has already taken the position that TEC/TECSC owns the parish properties in question. They did so in their Betterments lawsuit filed in the circuit court last November. The Betterments law says that people who occupy property that they believe they own but that really belongs to someone else are due reimbursement by the property owner for the improvements they made on the property. By filing the Betterments suit, DSC recognized that the Episcopal Church owned the parish properties.
2) The City of Rock Hill v. Thompson case of 2002 is not appropriate to the present case because the matter at hand is the circuit judge's ministerial duty to carry out the law that the SCSC has handed down in its decision.
3) The church case has been adjudicated and the SCSC decision has become final. The case is closed and cannot be re-adjudicated in the courts.
4) Most importantly, the delay in the implementation of the SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017, is doing harm to the Church. This is the strongest argument the TEC/TECSC lawyers are making now:
This is a plain admission that they are not holding and protecting the property for Petitioners [TEC/TECSC], but rather are improperly using it for their own purposes. That property includes unique real estate, historic buildings, and artifacts that cannot be replaced, along with accounts held in trust that are being depleted as this litigation is being improperly prolonged. Under these circumstances, Petitioners [TEC/TECSC] should not be relegated to continue to wait for their chances to appeal---while the Circuit Court delays and relitigates the merits, exceeding its jurisdiction on remittitur and failing to perform its ministerial duty to enforce this Court's mandate.
It has now been more than 20 months since this Court issued its final and dispositive decision on August 2, 2017. Petitioners are duly entitled to the transfer of the property that they have been awarded and that is being misused and depleted by Intervenors [DSC].
Thus, TEC/TECSC is making the strong case that the SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017 must be implemented soon not only because it is the law of the land but also because inaction is doing actual harm to the properties and their legal owners, TEC/TECSC.
It is unclear what happens next in this matter. DSC could file a reply to the reply. Judge Dickson could make some sort of statement in his defense. The SCSC justices could proceed and issue a ruling on TEC/TECSC's petition for a Writ. Whatever, I will report developments as I learn of them.
