Just because the parishioner loses right to the property does not mean the Bishop gets it. Whatever parishioner still loyal to the Church would have posession of the property.
Where is your proof for this? It isn't in the document cited...
A member leaving or being expelled causes that person to lose the rights of membership including the right to ownership of property which was had before. This we seem to agree upon. That the members own the parish property.
What happens to that right on expulsion or leaving? I believe it goes to the other members. Likewise when a new member joins he receives a portion of the Parish property from all the other members and they hold it collectively and equally.
You seem to be saying that when a member leaves, the Bishop takes their property rights for himself. No where does it say there is a transfer of property to the Bishop. It does not even say the Bishop is a member of the parish.
You are applying a concept of 'ownership' of assets that simply does not apply to a church.
I have never understood the concept of a parishioner 'owning' church property. Dart, you seem to equate this with ownership of your own private property. Is that the case or are we misunderstanding you? As has been stated above, it is the people of God who 'own' the earthly embodiment of the Church buildings. The question is thus - who represents the people of God in the Orthodox framework?
In most hierarchical churches, including the Orthodox, the Roman and the Anglican traditions, at the Diocesan level the Bishop legally embodies the earthly presence and worldly glory of God's Church, which is found in the corporate person of his Diocese, of which a parish is a component part. In American legal terms, the Bishop is the sole and ultimate trustee of the property. He gains NOTHING personally from this type of trusteeship or 'ownership' (except for a lot of restless nights and headaches.)
Parishes are subordinate to the Diocese, priests and people are bound to be loyal and obedient to their Bishop. When the Bishop may fail them, they must seek relief within the rules and statues of the Church. The Church is not a democracy. Orthodox parishes do not exist in a vacuum, cut off from the living roots of the Church. Without a Bishop and a Diocese, they are a flock without a shepherd and surely will wither and die in the absence of that connection.
It seems to me that to be Orthodox, in the final analysis, you have to accept hierarchical authority or you will effectively cut yourself off from the living body of the Church and become a schismatic. Obviously, who defines the other as a 'schismatic' depends on which side of the issue you perceive yourself to be on.
That is the choice that my grandparents and tens of thousands of others were forced to make when the actions of their Greek Catholic Bishops in America precluded them from honoring the faith of their fathers as they had been taught for generations. (That erroneous teaching was that they were so-called Orthodox in union with Rome. They learned the hard way that there was only one way to truly be Orthodox.) With few exceptions almost all of those who made the choice to fight the Church lost the parish property that they had built with their own sweat and equity and had to start all over again. The OCA, ACROD and the UOCUSA are, to a large part, living testaments to those choices.
You seem to be a pious, knowledgeable and well-versed Orthodox Christian by your writings. I can not imagine that the situation you have faced in Orthodoxy today is such that your conscience would dictate you to make such a drastic choice, but the choice is yours to make.