Episcopal Church in Diocese of Connecticut v. Gauss
28 A.3d 288
Conn.2011Background
- Plaintiffs filed May 20, 2008 seeking declaration that parish property is held in trust for the Episcopal Church and Diocese and requesting injunctive relief.
- Bishop Seabury Church Association sought to intervene; trial court denied, appellate proceedings followed.
- Defendants argued Parish was not authorized to sue and that Bishop Seabury Church Society held title or that Parish was a fictional entity.
- Trial court found Parish held property in trust for Episcopal Church and Diocese and entered possession and injunctive relief in favor of plaintiffs.
- Association argued it owned title and sought intervention to defend title; court denied intervention and evidentiary hearing.
- On appeal, court addressed whether association could intervene as of right and held representation by existing defendants was adequate, affirming denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention as of right viability | Association has a direct, substantial interest and timely appeal warrants intervention. | Parish/defendants adequately represent association's interests; no necessity for intervention. | Intervention as of right properly denied. |
| Adequacy of representation | Association cannot be adequately represented by defendants; conflicts and shared goals exist. | Defendants adequately represent association's interests; no adversity or collusion. | Presumption of adequate representation applies; association failed to overcome it; representation adequate. |
| Evidentiary hearing on intervention | A hearing is needed to develop merits of association's claims and right to possession. | Record and pleadings show issues were adequately raised without an evidentiary hearing. | Trial court properly denied evidentiary hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, 279 Conn. 447 (2006) (four-element conjunctive test for intervention; plenary review on adequacy of representation)
- Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 60 Conn.App. 134 (2000) (intervention as of right conjunctive test; adequacy considerations)
- BNY Western Trust v. Roman, 295 Conn. 194 (2010) (intervention standards; adequacy of representation and timeliness discussed)
- Edwards v. Houston, 78 F.3d 983 (1996) (presumption of adequate representation when interests align)
- Dixon v. Edwards, 290 F.3d 699 (2002) (injunctions focusing on rights of access and control, not ownership)
- Rector, Wardens & Vestrymen of Trinity-St. Michael's Parish, Inc. v. Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Connecticut, 224 Conn. 797 (1993) (title ownership not dispositive of trust existence)