This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Diocese of San Joaquin v. Gunner

Dispute over ownership of property that belonged to Diocese of San Joaquin before disaffiliation resolved by application of neutral principles of law.





Cite as

2016 DJDAR 4278

Published

May 5, 2016

Filing Date

May 4, 2016


DIOCESE OF SAN JOAQUIN et al.,

Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v.

KEVIN GUNNER, as Administrator, etc. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

 

No. F070264

(Super. Ct. No. 08CECG01425)

California Courts of Appeal

Fifth Appellate District

Filed May 4, 2016

 

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND

DENYING REHEARING

[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

 

     It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on April 5, 2016, be modified as follows:

 

     1.  On page 1, in the second full paragraph, the name ?VanRozenboom? is deleted and the name ?VanRozeboom? is inserted in its place.

 

2.  On page 2, the first full paragraph, beginning ?The trial court? is deleted and the following paragraph is inserted in its place:

 

The trial court ruled in favor of plaintiffs and respondents, the Protestant Episcopal Bishop of San Joaquin, the Diocese, and the Episcopal Church.  Defendants and appellants, Kevin Gunner, as administrator of the estate of John-David Schofield, the former Protestant Episcopal Bishop of San Joaquin, the Anglican Diocese Holding Corporation, the Episcopal Foundation of San Joaquin, Inc., and the Diocesan Investment Trust of the Diocese of San Joaquin (DIT), argue the trial court erred by misconstruing an earlier decision by this court and failing to apply neutral principles of law.

 

     3.  On page 21, before the last paragraph which begins ?Beginning on March 27, 2008,? the following subheading is inserted: 

 

(i)  The real property.

 

4.  On page 21, in the last paragraph, first sentence, the word ?real? is added before the word ?property? so that the sentence reads:

 

Beginning on March 27, 2008, and ending in August 2008, Schofield executed and recorded grant deeds for the disputed real property.

 

5.  On page 23, the first full paragraph, which begins, ?In sum, Schofield?s? is deleted and the following subheading and paragraphs are inserted:

    

(ii)  The personal property.

    

As of April 1, 2008, the Diocese had several investment accounts at the Fresno office of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (Merrill Lynch).  Title to these accounts was in the name of either The Protestant Episcopal Bishop of San Joaquin, a Corporation Sole or the DIT. 

    

The DIT is a non-profit corporation that was organized to receive, acquire, hold, manage, administer and expend funds for general charitable purposes and was authorized to establish one or more investment trust funds.  The chief executive officer of the DIT is the incumbent bishop of the corporation sole, i.e., the Protestant Episcopal Bishop of San Joaquin. 

    

In April and May 2008, Schofield established accounts at Merrill Lynch in the name of the Holding Corporation and instructed Merrill Lynch to transfer nearly all of the assets in the diocesan investment accounts to the new Holding Corporation accounts.  Thus, the assets went from being titled in the name of the Protestant Episcopal Bishop of San Joaquin, a Corporation Sole and DIT to being titled in the name of the Holding Corporation.

    

However, as with the real property, Schofield was attempting to transfer property that was titled in the name of or under the control of the Protestant Episcopal Bishop of San Joaquin when he no longer held that position.  Rather, Lamb was the Protestant Episcopal Bishop of San Joaquin.  Accordingly, Schofield did not have the power to transfer the investment account assets to the accounts in the name of the Holding Corporation.

    

In sum, Schofield?s attempts to transfer title of the real property from The Protestant Episcopal Bishop of San Joaquin to The Anglican Bishop of San Joaquin and then to the Holding Corporation were invalid.  Similarly, Schofield did not have authority to transfer the investment accounts to the Holding Corporation.  Accordingly, the judgment returning the property to the Episcopal Church and the Diocese is affirmed.

    

Except for the modifications set forth, the opinion previously filed remains unchanged.

    

This modification does not effect a change in judgment.

    

The petition for rehearing filed by appellants is denied.

 

                                                                LEVY, Acting P.J.

 

 

 

WE CONCUR:

FRANSON, J.

PEÑA J.

 

 

 

 

 

#207252

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424