Organize the web stories, info on the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) troubles: Property Ownership, Church Withdrawals, Ordination Standards, Hierarchical vs. Connectional.
NOTE: One of my lawyer contacts wonders if "Without Prejudice" means anything in Oklahoma? Our law says you must file all issues at the start of the lawsuit. You CANNOT file a second lawsuit over the same action.
\ | / - \ ! (me turning cartwheels)
OUCH! (me remembering I am no longer 20!)
From: Greg Coulter
Oct 24, 2008 4:07 pm
To: EOP Pastors' Notes
Friends,
No doubt many of you have read in one or more places that either the presbytery or the denomination is not playing fair with the Kirk of the Hills. Kirk spokespersons accuse EOP and PCUSA of lying about the terms of the settlement agreement. I want to assure you that this is not true.
The primary question raised is whether or not the proposed settlement concludes all pending legal matters. It would. One item, however, is no longer pending, the court decision on September 9 in which the District Court ruled in favor of EOP and PCUSA in the lawsuit filed by the Kirk. The Court ruled in favor of EOP and PCUSA under both legal constructs - "hierarchical deference" (which is the state law in OK) and "neutral principles" (which is the law in other states). Once the Court entered a ruling, it became a matter of public record. The only issue to be resolved is the wording of the final order (called a "journal entry"). EOP and PCUSA have agreed that the court's order (awarding the property to EOP) would be set aside at the settlement closing, but it has been (or should have been) clear all along that a judgment would be entered in the case.
At a subsequent hearing on October 6, set to determine the final language of the journal entry, the Kirk's attorneys raised several more arguments. Judge Sellers said that he had hoped the three parties to the suit (Kirk of the Hills Corporation, EOP, and PCUSA) would have resolved the language of the journal entry, but noted that more time might be necessary. He then said, "So, if you think you want to get closer and submit additional proposals, that's fine. You have ten days in which to do it, then I'll settle the judgment - - or journal entry, reflecting what my ruling is." At no time did the Court allow a situation in which the decision of September 9 would not be recorded in some manner.
Following the September 9 Court decision, representatives of the Kirk and EOP drafted a proposed settlement which would allow the Kirk to remain in the facilities which have now been awarded to EOP. EOP voted to accept that settlement on September 19. The Kirk congregation voted to accept that settlement on October 19. The Court requires a final journal entry to conclude the hearing on September 9 and all parties are working on the language of that final order. We are asking that it be a joint filing by attorneys for all three parties, as the language is largely that which was proposed originally by the Kirk's attorney. I have no word yet on whether the filing will be made by all three attorneys or not.
It is unfortunate that some of the normal conversations between attorneys which always accompany such discussions were forwarded to the media. However, it is not PCUSA or EOP which has tried to change any terms of the proposed settlement. Judge Sellers has ruled on the case and has determined that a journal entry will be placed in the Court record, whether the attorneys agree on common language or not. He has stated this on the record on multiple occasions. We see no reason not to settle and we remain confident that this matter will move forward.
If you have questions on these or any other matters, please do not hesitate to call the presbytery office. Dana Bailey or I would be more than happy to answer your questions or visit with your Session. In the meantime, please continue to pray for all involved, most especially the Kirk congregation.
Greg
Ed: For those who have not been following The Kirk story, this story seems to be a rebuttal to Rev. Greg Coulter comments from the Tulsa World Story: "He said the closeness of the vote clearly indicates a divided congregation."
NOTE: I have updated the court timeline and brought it up to date!
After the vote of the Congregation to settle our lawsuit with the EOP and PCUSA, Dean Luthey, attorney for the PCUSA, notified the Kirk that the PCUSA would not sign any release or agree to the settlement approved by the EOP and the Kirk. Instead, the PCUSA is now demanding a final, written order from Judge Sellers finding that the PCUSA won on its claims against the Kirk, and reciting certain legal grounds for that decision.
You should know that this was never a part of the agreement between the Kirk, the EOP or the PCUSA. In fact, written and oral assurances were given by the EOP and PCUSA that the PCUSA had approved the settlement as voted on and agreed to by the EOP and the Kirk. It is not advisable that we enter into a settlement only with the EOP since the PCUSA is a party to the lawsuit with claims against the Kirk.
What this means is that the settlement we approved on Sunday will probably not be completed. At this point, the lawsuit will continue and we will keep you posted as to its progress. We have had no recent word from the EOP as to whether or when it will seek to evict us from our building.
I deeply regret that the PCUSA has lied to the Kirk and the EOP about its approval of the settlement agreement. Please continue to be in prayer regarding the future of the Kirk. We will keep you informed of any changes or progress as it happens.
Rumor is the the Judge is so angry, he is thinking about ruling against PCUSA and for the Kirk. ... Not really, but it is a possibility.
Kirk vote 10/19:
For buying property - 508
Against - 483
A Kirk member
ED: As my wife says: "We're screwed" - the small churchs will never be able to leave.
Note: That the Clerk entered these first thing on Friday, which means they were filed Thursday, to meet the deadline.
The Kirk session had a meeting last night and voted to change their recommendation and oppose the offer to purchase the property made by EOP. This came after the Kirk attorneys reviewed the transcript of the hearing 10/6.
A Kirk Member
Layman Story: Kirk's session recommends rejecting property buyout
First Presbyterian Church of Thibodaux PC(USA) has been dissolved by the Presbytery of South Louisiana. Now FPC of Thibodaux can continue as an EPC congregation.
Now is is the time to stand up for Jesus with Grace, Love, Peace and Righteousness!
After we reviewed the results of the Monday hearing with Judge Sellers, we all felt that enough had changed that we would need time to review the transcripts, which are not available until next Monday. What we do know now is that, should you vote to repurchase the building, the problem of the Synod of the Sun undoing the transaction is largely resolved. The second option has changed entirely. Since the judge has not issued a final judgment, there is no appeal to be made at this time, nor would we have to leave the building unless or until such judgment is final.
We will have informational meetings on Wednesday, October 15th at 6:30pm. There will be a presentation and we will answer written questions. We will also have informal informational meetings on Thursday and Friday (the 16th and 17th) at 11:30am in the Chapel.
Tom Gray and Wayne Hardy
Kirk's Attorney Tim Trump:
We had a 2 hour hearing before Judge Sellers Monday morning. It was interesting and very confusing. I will try to distill what happened as best I can and then explain how it may affect the vote on Wednesday.
What does this mean? This means that without a final appealable judgment the EOP cannot evict us. This also means that we cannot take an immediate appeal. This means that if we do not settle the litigation will go on for several more months or maybe years before we get a final appealable judgment. The ruling in the EOP’s favor on the quiet title portion of the judgment (who owns the real estate) will not change regardless of how long the rest of the issues take to get resolved. This also means that the EOP does not really have a final judgment that it can tout to the rest of the world as a total victory. Finally this means that if there was an objection at the Synod level to a settlement that ended up undoing the settlement we would still be able to come back to Court and challenge it. In other words our appeal rights would not be lost.
What does this mean? This means that he will give them the equivalent of whatever we had in the bank accounts on that day plus all other assets we owned as of that date. Anything that was acquired after that date is ours to keep. This is important because it means that if we leave we may not leave completely empty handed. This also bodes well for our position that they cannot touch anything in Joppa’s name.
What does this mean? Judge Sellers recognizes that because he does not have a final order he cannot evict us in the normal course. He is concerned that something would happen to the property while we continue with the case. He wants to protect and preserve that value so that when the EOP gets the property at the end of the case it will still have value. This may take the form of some kind of bond or promise to insure or maintain the property. It also might take the form of an eviction order before the case is finished. That would be unusual but not impossible. At this point the EOP has not requested anything in this regard so there is nothing for him to decide. If the EOP files such a request my guess is that we would have a hearing in 30 to 60 days. At that hearing he would take evidence and determine an appropriate amount of a bond or level of protection. If we meet those terms we could continue to stay. If we don’t the Judge could order us to get out. He gave no indication of what he would consider an appropriate bond.
He will file a written order within 20 days. If we do not settle he will set a scheduling order to get the remaining issues resolved. This may take years. EOP’s attorney indicated that they might dismiss the breach of Contract and fiduciary duty claims. The court indicated that if they do not dismiss those claims, we would be entitled to a jury trial on those issues. He is not sure if he can enforce the Administrative Commission Report since it does not really recommend a specific course. In terms of the jurisdiction issue he makes a distinction between Church discipline and property ownership (In essence he is saying that once we leave the EOP cannot discipline us but they can take our property).
BOTTOM LINE- The ruling does not substantively change option #1 (pay the money and settle). It does, however, change option # 2 (appeal and vacate) since now we can neither appeal nor would we be required to immediately vacate. Option #2 really becomes-- Do we want to continue with the litigation until there is future order that requires us to vacate? Eventually we would get a final order which we could appeal but it may be a year or so down the road. The litigation course will cost more money and take more time. We know the decision from Judge Sellers regarding ownership of the building will not be in our favor and we will still have to appeal.
In the meantime, however, it is possible that we could move forward on a new church and be a long way down the road toward completing it before we ultimately got evicted. This might be two months or it might be two year
I see not grace from EOP, I only see hate, anger, and denial of the facts and denial of the love and grace of Jesus Christ.
Ten days would be Oct 16th?
Five Presbyterian congregations in Indiana have been trying to leave the Presbyterian Church (USA) for more than a year, but the Presbytery of Wabash Valley has stymied their efforts to let them go with their property.
It has placed administrative commissions in all of the five congregations and a temporary pulpit supply minister at First Presbyterian Church in Kokomo.
| Church | City | Size |
| Covenant PC | W. Lafayette | 1,165 |
| First PC | Kodomo | 568 |
| First PC | Frankfort | 303 |
| First PC | Nappanee | 99 |
| Attica PC | Attica | 90 |
| Total | 14% | 2,225 |
| Presbytery | 15,549 |
General Assembly Council member Clark D. Cowden of San Diego said that four churches in California have announced they are pulling out of the denomination, "and a great number are getting in line to do the same."
He said that if presbyteries vote to remove the fidelity-chastity ordination standard from the PCUSA's Book of Order, there may be "a great exodus." He also said that churches may not leave physically, but they are already leaving spiritually, mentally and financially.
NOTE I will not be able to attend (day job is pressing). I hope to hear news from Kirk website or a Kirk member
Q. What is Lis Pendens?
A. A Lis Pendens means a Notice of a Pending Lawsuit.
It is a means by which the filer of the lis pendens notifies the world as a matter of public record that the real property against which it is filed is subject to the decision of a Court in a pending action.
Typically a lis pendens or notice of pendency is employed in a foreclosure action by lenders when borrowers default of mortgage loans. The property mortgaged acts as security for the debt or loan given. It can also be used in other actions involving real property such as an action in specific performance to compel the sale of real estate.
If there has been a lis pendens filed against property in which you have an interest you should consult with local counsel immediately to determine your rights.
Posts
All Comments
