Kirk of the Hills case

[Gold]

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.

[Townsend]

Does that mean they lose the property?  Excuse my ignorance.

[Gold]

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.

[FOTD]

This was all about the property ....certainly not about churchianity. Guess the outlaws will have to find a new tent.

[Timb]

Where is the decision available to read?

[Gold]

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

[tim huntzinger]

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.

[FOTD]

Trust me, no problem being Satan's servant.

[Gold]

Press releases:

EOP

Kirk

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.

[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.

[FOTD]

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

[Kashmir]

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!

[Steve]

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.

[CoffeeBean]

^^^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.

[inteller]

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.