A.S. Haley: Virginia Supreme Court Grants Review in Falls Church Case

Monday, October 29, 2012

A writ panel of three Justices of the Virginia Supreme Court, who heard oral arguments on October 16 in favor of the Petition for Appeal filed by The Falls Church Anglican following the adverse judgment by the Fairfax County Circuit Court has issued an order granting review of the case. (H/T: BabyBlueOnline.)

The Court's order grants review of the following six points of error raised by The Falls Church:

1. The trial court erred in enforcing canon law, rather than “principles of real property and contract law” used in all cases ... to award plaintiffs a proprietary interest in TFC’s property and to extinguish TFC’s interest in such property, even though TFC’s own trustees held title and TFC paid for, improved, and maintained the property.

2. The trial court’s award of TFC’s property to plaintiffs violates the Religion Clauses of the U.S. and Virginia Constitutions by enabling denominations to secure others’ property by means available to no other Virginia entity.

3. The trial court erred in finding that plaintiffs had proprietary interests in TFC’s real property acquired before 1904, when the legislature first referenced denominational approval of church property transfers. [Note: in the body of the Petition, this claim of error is restated in this way: "The trial court divested TFC of property by retroactively applying canons and statutes passed after the conveyances at issue, contrary to state law and the Contracts Clause."]

4. The trial court erred in awarding plaintiffs TFC’s unconsecrated real property, which is exempt from plaintiffs’ canons.

5. The trial court erred in awarding TFC’s personal property to plaintiffs—even though plaintiffs never had any control over TFC’s funds or their use, and TFC’s donors, for religious reasons, gave on the express condition that their gifts not be forwarded to plaintiffs—in violation of Va. Code §57-1 and the Religion Clauses of the U.S. and Virginia Constitutions.

6. The trial court erred in awarding plaintiffs more relief than sought, including funds given after TFC disaffiliated and funds spent on maintenance, which plaintiffs stipulated TFC should keep.

the rest