CHICAGO – A Chicago Court issued its final decision late Friday evening, October 25 that the sale of the nave of the historic Holy Trinity parish of Chicago should proceed.
As TNH had reported on October 10, the Court had issued an order on October 3 that temporarily froze the sale of the nave of Holy Trinity.
It is reminded here that on September 10 the sale of the nave had been authorized for the price of $2.5 million dollars to the religious organization Universal Life Church.
Judge Timothy A. Barnes in his lengthy decision made reference to the Uniform Parish Regulations of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America as to who has the authority the local Metropolitan or the members of the parish. He stated that there was “ambiguity.”
The Judge wrote in his decision among other things the following: “The Uniform Regulations define the Metropolitan as “[t]he head Hierarch of a Metropolis,” (Id. at p. ix.) Here, the Metropolitan of the Metropolis containing the Debtor is Metropolitan Nathaniel, the Metropolitan of the Greek Orthodox Church of Chicago, Debtor’s Resp., Exh. A (the “Approval of the Metropolitan”), and Metropolitan Nathaniel has apparently given hierarchical approval for the sale. Id. The crux of the Concerned Parishioners’ argument is, however, that while such approval may have been obtained, as the approval of two-thirds of the parishioners was not, the sale is unauthorized. The Opposing Parties, on the other hand, argue that the two-thirds vote requirement is simply a procedure to ensure that the Hierarch is not burdened with such requests. According to the Opposing Parties, such procedure is one of convenience for the Hierarch but is not an actual vested right of the parishioners. Here is where neutral principles of law cease to be illuminating. To accept the Concerned Parishioners’ argument, the court must conclude that the Archdiocese, in approving the Uniform Regulations, intended to divest the higher authorities within the church from making decisions. There is some evidence to support that. See Uniform Regulations, art. 10, sec. 2(M) (setting forth the Metropolitan’s responsibilities and rights to include approving the purchase, sale, lease, mortgaging or other encumbrance of the real property of a Parish, but procedurally in accordance with Article 16, quoted above). This might be read to limit the Metropolitan’s authority in this regard. It might also, however, be read as the Debtor suggests, as a procedural convenience. The language, in this context, is ambiguous. By the same token, for the court to conclude that the church intended to vest in its parishioners a property right sufficient to require service under Bankruptcy Rule 6004(c) and sufficient to create a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the sale, the court must attempt to answer fundamental questions of the church’s treatment of its parishioners. Interpreting that ambiguity and resolving those fundamental questions would require this court to probe into the allocation of power within the church, to attempt to posit the church’s intent and polity regarding the rights of its parishioners.”
The Judge concluded that “here, those facts and circumstances require that the Rule 60 Motion be denied. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that the Chicago Sale Order is not appropriately subject to reconsideration in this matter and must, therefore, be denied.
Dated: October 25, 2019 Timothy A. Barnes United States Bankruptcy Judge.”
The post Court’s Final Decision: Holy Trinity in Chicago Will Be Sold appeared first on The National Herald.