Kirk of the Hills lost on summary judgment on pretty much every issue today. Even if the appellate court overrules some of the caselaw, he ruled in favor of the Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery on "neutral principles." Game. Set. Match.
Kirk could file an appeal, but the bond is going to be outregeous because it's likely going to be based on back rent.
There is a 20 day stay of execution of the judgment.
All these Kirk people kept telling me this was an easy case. Guess not.
Does that mean they lose the property? Excuse my ignorance.
Good question.
If you follow the letter of the ruling, I think so.
I don't think that will happen, though. There may well be a settlement and the terms may end up being confidential.
Kirk should have settled this a long time ago.
No one wins in this deal, though after some of the nonsense passed off as legal reasoning that I read on Gray's blog, I will admit to a bit of schadenfreude.
This was all about the property ....certainly not about churchianity. Guess the outlaws will have to find a new tent.
Where is the decision available to read?
I don't think there will be a written decision. That rarely is in a case at Tulsa County (and despite the fear mongering of some on here, that's just the way it is). That said, because the judge described the principles he based his decision on, look for the press statement from the EOP and that should should be pretty close to what happened.
Here is the OSCN sheet:
http://www.oscn.net/applications/ocisweb/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=1911493&db=Tulsa
PCUSA did this to my dad's church in Colorado. After generations of this small town paying dues had built it up, once the folk left that Demonation too bad. They lost everything. And the PCUSA called my dad 'a servant of Satan' in one of the Denver papers.
Run. Do not walk. (//%22http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=18&verse=4&version=31&context=verse%22)
Trust me, no problem being Satan's servant.
Press releases:
EOP (//%22http://www.thekirk.com/downloads/current_events/EOP_Press_Release.pdf%22)
Kirk (//%22http://www.thekirk.com/downloads/current_events/press_release.pdf%22)
Editorial comment: someone REALLY needs to get Gray to drop the rhetoric. How can it be a gross injustice if a respected judge spent so much time on the ruling? You can disagree as a matter of law, but these comments just sort of fuel the fire.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Trust me, no problem being Satan's servant.
Well it is like someone calling you a Republican. THAT level of insult.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Trust me, no problem being Satan's servant.
Well it is like someone calling you a Republican. THAT level of insult.
Sorry for being rude. The lawsuit was about property. The congregational division was about homosexuality.....
Itinerant Exorcism Service: "Friend Of The Devil"
The line for pitchforks forms on the left...torches on the right.
TulsaNow's Itinerant Exorcism Servicer
I applied there for a job years ago as a teacher at the summer program. My employment contract was crazy...you were going to be paid in installments, and when you added up the hours, including strongly encouraged after hours events, it was like 2.58 an hour.[:(!] No thanks!
I think the court was absolutely right in ruling that the real estate ownership is/remains with the Presbytery. The church members are free to find another denomination if they are unhappy, or they could possibly buy the property from the parent organization if an agreement could be worked out, but they have no right to legal title to the property without agreement and compensation to the Presbytery. From what I read in today's World, the court complied with an OK Supreme Court ruling from 1973 in a similar case regarding a church property ownership conflict.
If I give time/money to a charitable organization, faith-based or not, I don't have any right to seize their real estate if they subsequently make decisions or policies I don't agree with; in that case I just move on and give my support elsewhere. The Kirk members need to do the same.
^^^Steve, I think you have this somewhat backwards. The Kirk owned the property before it ever joined the national church.
By joining, the Kirk propety was then given to the national church to be held in trust.
Now, the national trust and the Kirk are divided over certain issues, and the Kirk sought to get its property back.
Therein lies the problem, the Kirk had already given away its property.
Its not like the Kirk was trying to get something that it never owned, it simply made a poor choice when it deeded property to the national church.
well, this was a pretty open and shut case. PCUSA has always owned the property. No one was misled. I liked KOTH and went there a few times. Great church...but the law is the law.
With that said, if you ever attended service at KOTH you know it is a who's who of Tulsa elite, so I think a few of the deep pockets will step up and buy the building.
quote:
Originally posted by CoffeeBean
By joining, the Kirk propety was then given to the national church to be held in trust.
Now, the national trust and the Kirk are divided over certain issues, and the Kirk sought to get its property back.
Therein lies the problem, the Kirk had already given away its property.
Its not like the Kirk was trying to get something that it never owned, it simply made a poor choice when it deeded property to the national church.
Poor choice or not, the property belongs to the parent church organization, not the local residents. It is much the same with any local church, regardless of denomination. If the members have issues with the church doctrine, then break away, form your own church, whatever. These kinds of issues are exactly why I have such a distaste for any form of organized religion. It all seems to be a battle over money and material property. Shame on both sides.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
quote:
Originally posted by CoffeeBean
By joining, the Kirk propety was then given to the national church to be held in trust.
Now, the national trust and the Kirk are divided over certain issues, and the Kirk sought to get its property back.
Therein lies the problem, the Kirk had already given away its property.
Its not like the Kirk was trying to get something that it never owned, it simply made a poor choice when it deeded property to the national church.
Poor choice or not, the property belongs to the parent church organization, not the local residents. It is much the same with any local church, regardless of denomination. If the members have issues with the church doctrine, then break away, form your own church, whatever. These kinds of issues are exactly why I have such a distaste for any form of organized religion. It all seems to be a battle over money and material property. Shame on both sides.
If I were KOTH I would use this as an opportunity to move on to greener pastures where people need their help instead of trying to keep the ivory tower.
nm
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
Poor choice or not, the property belongs to the parent church organization, not the local residents. It is much the same with any local church, regardless of denomination.
It is not the same with any local church. Baptist, Unitarian, United Church of Christ, Church of Christ -- any congregationally-governed church -- the congregation owns its property, and its participation in regional or national organizations is at the church's discretion.
In the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), a conservative offshoot of the mainline Presbyterian churches, congregational ownership of property is enshrined in the denominational constitution.
For Episcopal and Catholic churches, it's my understanding that the title for parish property is in the bishop's name.
A Wikipedia article (I know, I know) about the UPCUSA -- the old northern Presbyterian church (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Presbyterian_Church_in_the_United_States_of_America%22) -- says that the defection of conservative congregations to the PCA and the then new Evangelical Presbyterian Church led to the 1981 amendment to the Book of Church Order that required the presbytery's permission for a congregation to take its property to another denomination.
There was a brief window after northern-southern reunion in 1983 when churches from the southern branch (PCUS) could leave and take property with them, but that would not have applied to the Kirk, since it was part of the northern branch (UPCUSA).
Whatever the legal resolution, the just and moral settlement would be for EOP to let the Kirk go in peace, with the property that the Kirk's members paid for. I suspect that EOP contributed next to nothing financially or organizationally to the Kirk compared to the Kirk's contributions to EOP over the years.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
QuoteOriginally posted by Steve
Whatever the legal resolution, the just and moral settlement would be for EOP to let the Kirk go in peace, with the property that the Kirk's members paid for. I suspect that EOP contributed next to nothing financially or organizationally to the Kirk compared to the Kirk's contributions to EOP over the years.
That's not accurate. The EOP (or what became the EOP) gave money to Kirk early on to help start the church. They have a financial interest in it. Beyond that, there is a pretty big financial hit from attorney fees at this point and that will surely affect settlement negotiations. And let's not forget the toll certain members of EOP have taken for just doing their job, all the while members of the Kirk and sympathizers are out spreading rumors and legally inaccurate statements (not a cost, per se, but a reason this whole thing might not settle).
I suggest you ask around with any higher-ups you might know at the Kirk as to where negotiations stand. There is a big difference between taking the high road and making a terrible decision for your congregation.
Do you mean EPC?
Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery.
quote:
Originally posted by Gold
Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery.
PCUSA owns all Presbyterian Church property.
It's in their By-Laws. SOP.
It discourages congregations from going "rogue", like Kirk of the Hills tried to do.
So, the congregation can split off. They just don't own the church property, and would presumably have to move to another forum.
I'm well aware of that. The reality is a bit more nuanced, but hey, A for effort on your part and you managed not to mention the Lortons. Good work!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Gold
I'm well aware of that. The reality is a bit more nuanced, but hey, A for effort on your part and you managed not to mention the Lortons. Good work!!!
I didn't know the Lorton's were Presbyterians.
In fact, I didn't know they believe in God.
I thought they just believed in Money.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
I didn't know the Lorton's were Presbyterians.
In fact, I didn't know they believe in God.
I thought they just believed in Money.
They aren't. And it is no business of yours.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
I didn't know the Lorton's were Presbyterians.
In fact, I didn't know they believe in God.
I thought they just believed in Money.
They aren't. And it is no business of yours.
Their God is MONEY.
Matthew 19:24: "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by Gold
I'm well aware of that. The reality is a bit more nuanced, but hey, A for effort on your part and you managed not to mention the Lortons. Good work!!!
I didn't know the Lorton's were Presbyterians.
In fact, I didn't know they believe in God.
I thought they just believed in Money.
(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/funny-pictures-lightbulb-cat-get-a-life.jpg)