JUDGE DICKSON OFFICIALLY DENIES
TEC/TECSC MOTION TO DISMISS 

DSC'S BETTERMENTS SUIT

Judge Edgar Dickson has issued an "Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint." This happened on Monday, 9 September 2019.

Recall that Dickson had announced his intention of such on 28 August, a week before mediation sessions between the adversaries were to begin in Charleston. Moreover, the judge invited the DSC attorney, Alan Runyan, to submit a proposed order for Dickson to use. Why Judge Dickson chose to announce his decision at that time, a week before mediation, remains a mystery. Likewise, why he chose to have the plaintiffs' lead lawyer compose it instead of writing it himself is a mystery. Dickson gave no explanation of either decision. 

We know from court records that Runyan submitted his "Proposed Order/Dismissal" to Judge Dickson at 10:26 a.m. on Monday, September 9. The proposed order itself was not posted on the court website, only the receipt of the order. An hour and a half later, Dickson released his official "Order..." Although we cannot know with certainty, it seems safe to assume that Runyan's proposed order became Dickson's official Order.

You may read Dickson's Order online. South Carolina circuit court documents are generously provided on the Internet. To reach the papers in this case, go to  publicindex.sccourts.org/dorchester/public index. Once there, click "Accept," then put in Case # 2017CP1801909, and click "Search." On the next screen, click on the first Case Number. Next, click on "Actions." The Documents are on the far right in reverse chronological order.

There are two case numbers concerning the schism. 2013CP1800013 is the original suit and its train.

The main point in Dickson's six-page Order concerns timeliness. TEC/TECSC said the Betterments suit had not been filed within 48 hours of the final decision. The judge declared it had since the Nov. 17 denial of rehearing and Remittitur had been the final decision. On this, it is interesting to note that the judge implied the South Carolina Supreme Court decision was final:  However, an opinion of the South Carolina Supreme Court is not final until the remittitur is sent... (p.4). The whole point of the Church's case is that the SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017 is final. Finally, the judge seemed to draw a distinction between owning the property and having trust control of the property. Actually, as I read it, the majority of the SCSC ruled that ownership of the 29 parish properties had moved to the Episcopal Church because the local congregations had violated the terms of the trust set up in the Dennis Canon, to which they had acceded. Once they broke the trust by declaring secession from the Episcopal Church, the Church became the owner of the property as the beneficiary of the trust. 

Most hopeful for the DSC side is the judge's reminder on page 3:  The Amended Complaint prays that the resolution of the issues in this case awaits this Court's decision on motions filed in the remitted case concerning the parish plaintiffs' "accession" (agreement) to the Dennis Canon as well as the Plaintiff Diocese's property interests. I interpret this to mean Judge Dickson takes seriously DSC's claim that he has the right to decide on the disposition of the property of the 29 parishes. This has been the main point of Runyan's case all along. TEC/TECSC maintains Dickson does not have the right to rule on the property issue because this was settled in the SCSC decision of August 2, 2017.

At the time Dickson announced he would deny TEC/TECSC's motion for dismissal, the DSC side declared victory. They insisted the judge had ruled for them. Actually, Dickson only denied the Church motion. He did not make any decision on Betterments. He only allowed the DSC suit to continue. He did not rule on the suit itself. Thus, in the future, he could very well rule against DSC in its Betterments suit. Of course, if he rules in favor of DSC, he would be recognizing that the Episcopal Church owns the properties in question. 

It seems to me that, on the whole, Judge Dickson is leaning to the DSC side. He has made only three decisions in this case, all favorable, or potentially so, to DSC:   1-in the hearing of July 23, 2019, he got the lawyers of the two sides to agree that the seven parishes listed in the SCSC decision as independent, be officially recognized as such;   2-in the hearing of July 23, he ordered mediation;   3-on 9 September he dismissed TEC/TECSC's motion for dismissal of DSC's Betterments suit. 

One should remember that the SCSC sent a Remittitur Order to the circuit court on Nov. 17, 2017. Judge Dickson was assigned the Order in January of 2018. That means for nineteen months, he has not implemented any part of the SCSC decision favorable to the Episcopal Church. The only part he has implemented was to the benefit of the secessionists. His job is to put into effect the SCSC decision. He has done that for only one small part of the decision.

The new date for the first session of mediation is 26 September 2019.

I will return soon with a review of the issues at hand on the approach of mediation.