Title: Episcopal Church Cases

State: california

Issuer: California Supreme Court

Document:

Filed 2/25/09 (corrected version of modification order previously posted this date) 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
) 
 
 
) 
EPISCOPAL CHURCH CASES. 
) 
S155094 
 
 
) 
Ct.App. 4/3 
 
 
) 
G036096, G036408 & 
 
) 
G036868 
 
 
) 
Orange County 
 
 
) 
JCCP No. 4392 
 ___________________________________ ) 
 
MODIFICATION OF OPINION 
 
THE COURT: 
 
The opinion herein, filed on January 5, 2009, and appearing at 45 Cal.4th 
467, is modified as follows: 
 
The first sentence in the second full paragraph on page 473 is modified to 
read:  “Applying the neutral principles of law approach, we conclude, on this 
record, that the general church, not the local church, owns the property in 
question.” 
 
The third full paragraph on page 476 is modified to read: “We granted 
review to decide whether this action is subject to the special motion to strike under 
Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 and to address the merits of the church 
property dispute.”  
 
The first full paragraph on page 478, under “B.,” is modified to read: “Both 
lower courts also addressed the merits of the dispute over ownership of the local 
church — the trial court found in favor of the local church and the Court of Appeal 
found clear and convincing evidence in favor of the general church.  We will also 
address this question, which the parties as well as various amici curiae have fully 
briefed.  We will first consider what method the secular courts of this state should 
use to resolve disputes over church property.  We will then apply that method to 
analyze the dispute of this case.” 
 
The first sentence of the first full paragraph on page 493 is modified to 
read: “For these reasons, we agree with the Court of Appeal’s conclusion 
(although not with all of its reasoning) that, on this record, when defendants 
disaffiliated from the Episcopal Church, the local church property reverted to the 
general church.”  
 
 
This modification does not affect the judgment.