Thank God, and not man. When the TFC/ACNA (what we need is a new acronym), votes to decide how to handle the upcoming months I will be strongly in favor of getting out of the property as soon as possible, the decision to as for this pre-trial judgment solidified that decision for me.
I would be interested for a report on the Judge's reasoning for delying the request in its entirety. In my view the motion was ill-conceived because it contradicted the Bishop's conciliatory words at the annual convention, and was predicated upon the theory that funds in accounts as of December 2006 could have been frozen, when in reality all of those funds would have had to have been expended for fixed costs (i.e., maintenance) incurred regardless of who had the properties. One wonders if the motion was made to mollify the PB and her Chancellor.At any rate, this is developing into an interesting case where one party (the Diocese) holds legal power while the other (the Anglican congregations) holds economic power, at least insofar as the congregations can basically cause the churches to shutter by their departure. In the end, if the Diocese wants to put viable congregations in these buildings -- a proposition I am not convinced is entirely accurate -- it will have to work on a negotiated situation with the congregations.
I generally agree with Steven's comment (we should enjoy these moments of accord when they happen). One of the reasons for the denial as reported by BB may have been the absence of a demand for pre-judgment interest in the Diocese's original complaint. Another may be that the judge felt it was premature to address the issue - that an allowance for interest (or not) during the wrongful possession of the properties should be part of the negotiated overall order that the parties are supposed to submit, if they can achieve agreement. As I have not been able to find a copy of an order or any account that explains the judge's reasoning, this is all just speculation on my part. As a general concept, however, whether in this case or any other, there is nothing particularly remarkable about awarding pre-judgment interest when a party is determined to have unlawfully held the property of another over the course of litigation. The issue of some of the funds having to have been expended regardless of who had them within his grasp is irrelevant. The court can fashion an award that allows a set-off for funds used to maintain the properties during the unlawful possession. I have no doubt that a negotiated solution has been very much the focus of both sides' activities over the past several weeks.Scout
OT note to bb -The new CAPTCHA words are very difficult to read. Maybe that proves I'm not a robot...I had to try 3 times to get this to post.
Not only am I generally agreeing with Steven in this thread, I am also agreeing with RalphM. Alas, I was coming to the opposite tentative conclusion from Ralph - I thought perhaps the reason I couldn't read the words was because I AM a robot.
I don't follow how the CANA congregations hold the economic power, or really any power at all at this point. Help me understand that.
One of principles of community organizing is that there are two types of power, organized money and organized people. I think the CANA congregations have, or can have, both.
Anon at 9:52AM,I believe Steven's point is that DioVA is not prepared financially to take over the properties in the near term. Even empty buildings cost money to maintain. There are one or two mortgages that will revert to DioVA as well. Only time will tell if DioVA can successfully grow congregations to fill the buildings. Recent history is not encouraging for that endeavor.
I appreciate BB's supplying us with news of the disposition of the motion concerning pre-judgment interest. I hope that the beginning of the week provides us with an order from the court or somewhat more explanation of what actually happened on Friday. Scout
Post a Comment