tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post454575541233574725..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Sue the illegitimiFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-48578972048880313392007-11-06T10:47:00.000-05:002007-11-06T10:47:00.000-05:00Would it perhaps be possible to set up such a bequ...Would it perhaps be possible to set up such a bequest as a trust vested in trustees rather than in the beneficiary itself? The moneys, in this case, would not be disbursed unless the conditions of the will were met ab=nd were approved by the trustees.<BR/><BR/>edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-13218313617030238422007-11-05T17:48:00.000-05:002007-11-05T17:48:00.000-05:00I see no reason why such cases would become so mud...I see no reason why such cases would become so muddy, especially if the precedents in these university cases go in favor of the families and against the institutions that have mishandled endowments. What would be needed is family members similarly motivated.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-34495010603538605632007-11-05T09:05:00.000-05:002007-11-05T09:05:00.000-05:00“It is safe to say that most of their endowment mo...“It is safe to say that most of their endowment money… should be given, to be true to the wishes of those who willed the endowments, to faithful Continuing Anglican churches…”<BR/><BR/>And any meaningful effort to do that will provoke lawsuits reminiscent of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce!<BR/><BR/>“Jarndyce and Jarndyce drones on. The scarecrow of a suit has, in course of time, become so complicated, that no man alive knows what it means. The parties to it understand it least; but it has been observed that no two Chancery lawyers can talk about it for five minutes, without coming to a total disagreement as to all the premises. Innumerable children have been born into the cause; innumerable young people have married into it; innumerable old people have died out of it….” (From Dickens’ Bleak House, chapter one.)The Auld MacLarenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12676750814966321738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-72858334424092809342007-11-05T01:02:00.000-05:002007-11-05T01:02:00.000-05:00If you leave your money to a university for the pu...If you leave your money to a university for the purpose of supporting the teaching and learning of Latin and Ancient Greek, it might be considered a breach of trust if the money is taken from Classics and applied to endow a new course in postmodern deconstruction of the contemporary American Situation Comedy. Of course, if the university ceases to teach classical languages, it should apply to a Court for a ruling that would designate the nearest equivalent.<BR/><BR/>The problem with leaving your money to, say, the 'Anglican Church', is that the Court is more likely to consider the bricks, mortar and bureaucracy--the administrative superstructure, if you like--of whatever 'Anglican Church' the money was left to and to look for continuity in these rather than in the substance of the 'Anglicanism' that the particular institution provides. Australian Courts at least will shy away from theological questions, as well, perhaps, they should.<BR/><BR/>The overriding difficulty for charitable gifts and bequests is that, ultimately, there's a limit to one's ability to rule from the grave.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-53321436382582753812007-11-04T23:15:00.000-05:002007-11-04T23:15:00.000-05:00Fr. Hart's suggestion is a pregnant one. There wi...Fr. Hart's suggestion is a pregnant one. There will probably turn out to be some sort of "period of repose" that would protect gifts of a certain age or older from recapture by the residuary beneficiaries of the original donors, but there will also be a lot of money that has been given to ECUSA and to ECUSA's subordinate dioceses and parishes within relatively recent times that might be subject to this sort of attack.<BR/><BR/>Back when I was in law school in Massachusetts (1974-78), there was a case involving Amherst College. As I recall (I could have some of the details confused), a wealthy alumnus left a large sum of money to build a science building but the college decided it really didn't need a new science building but did need a new dorm. The donor's heirs said "no" and told the college that it could either build what the decedent had intended or it could give the money back.<BR/><BR/>Amherst went to court to try to have the doctrine of "cy pres" applied to permit it to divert the money to its preferred use. The court told it that was inapplicable as the intended use was not impossible, it simply wasn't the administration's top priority. So the college could do as the donor wanted or it could give the money to his heirs.<BR/><BR/>Oddly, the college did then find it could make room for a science building.... But the case does illustrate the principle.<BR/><BR/>What one cannot expect to happen is for the civil courts to engage in weighing whether a gift left to foster a particular type of church doctrine has been used effectively for that purpose. Also, the only parties with standing to bring such an action are those who would be able to claim the money in question under a residuary clause or similar provision. <BR/><BR/>John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-32847697612500147962007-11-04T21:47:00.000-05:002007-11-04T21:47:00.000-05:00We need to watch the precedents, because we may ha...We need to watch the precedents, because we may have something to glean.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-1195714958423120902007-11-04T21:46:00.000-05:002007-11-04T21:46:00.000-05:00I'm not a lawyer, but I'm afraid I'd counsel again...I'm not a lawyer, but I'm afraid I'd counsel against leaving money or other proerties to any organization, even one that you trust implicitly at the present time, without <BR/><BR/>a. laying out clear and precise conditions under which that money can be kept and used, and<BR/><BR/>b. designating an alternate beneficiary in case those conditions cease to be met, and<BR/><BR/>c. insuring that the alternate is informed in detail as to those conditions.<BR/><BR/>ed<BR/><BR/>edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-87758250337061913392007-11-04T21:16:00.000-05:002007-11-04T21:16:00.000-05:00Cal Thomas's column goes to show how the present c...Cal Thomas's column goes to show how the present crisis of church litigation is becoming widely known.<BR/>This will probably hit conservative talk radio before long.<BR/>Our church (never a part of ECUSA) received a letter from our insurance carrier recently, helpfully pointing out that our coverage would be no good if we should be sued for schism!<BR/>Word is on the street, folks. Whereas the Episcopal Cburch used to be known as the bibulous church, now it's the litigious church. Where two or three are gathered together, there may be a lawsuit.<BR/>Laurence K. WellsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-91543021776430444142007-11-04T20:38:00.000-05:002007-11-04T20:38:00.000-05:00Padre,I have written a few volumes on this, with a...Padre,<BR/>I have written a few volumes on this, with a bunch of news articles thrown in. Of course, these donors would be turning over in their graves. However, as I am involved in a case (or two)currently, I have to restrict comment.<BR/>Blessings,<BR/>Fr. NallsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com