Episcopal priest Mark Anderson, vicar of St. John’s Cathedral in Jacksonville, admits under oath to adultery and mortgage fraud. Or maybe it’s not mortgage fraud, and he’s simply proferring perjurious testimony in his divorce case.

One of the great things about being retired is having the time to ferret out misconduct in out-of-the-way places. And, since the weather is hot (and smoky) and folks here at AW don’t feel like going outside, we’ve had extra time on our hands, resulting in us discovering abusive and potentially criminal conduct by Episcopal priest Mark Anderson, vicar of St. John’s Cathedral in Jacksonville, in the Diocese of Florida. Additionally, the behavior in question is indisputably a violation of Episcopal Church clergy disciplinary canons.

Before we go further, we need to flag a key issue for clergy: Per the canons, by virtue of their ordination vows, clergy accept additional responsibilities and accountabilities for doctrine, discipline, worship, and obedience. (Canon IV.1) Moreover, the church’s Title IV clergy disciplinary canons expressly apply only to clergy. 

In other words, members of the church and the public have a right to expect exemplary behavior from clergy. But Anderson’s conduct is deplorable, by any standard.

We also want to add a disclaimer: The source of our information was NOT Anderson’s wife. 

Yeah, we get around.

Adultery

The first issue is Anderson’s adulterous relationship with Jana Angel (website).

While Anderson is in the midst of divorce proceedings from his wife — ones that he is using to engage in abusive conduct towards her — the Episcopal church requires clergy to remain faithful to their marriage vows for the duration of the marriage, the Daniel McClain Title IV case being a prime example.

Despite this requirement of marital fidelity, Anderson has testified in his divorce proceedings that he and Angel are in a committed relationship, and that she has stayed overnight at his home, including while his child was present. (Mark Anderson Dep. pp. 89:2-91:23.) He has traveled to Charlotte several times and admitted, “I don’t think I would be going to Charlotte if she wasn’t there.” (Dep. pp. 99:20-100:3.)

This was separate from a broader pattern of evasive or implausibly uncertain testimony. For example, Anderson professed uncertainty about whether the dependent listed on his tax return was his child or his dog, the address of a home he had recently visited, and where a cruise with Jana departed from or traveled to.

This Title IV clergy disciplinary canons expressly proscribe this behavior, forbidding conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. (Canon IV.4.1.h.6)

A copy of Anderson’s deposition (which we did NOT obtain from his wife) is included, along with other documentation, at the end of this post. To be clear: It’s a wild ride, replete with facially sneaky and dishonest testimony.

Emotional and relational abuse

In the course of our investigation, we also received numerous reports of Anderson being emotionally and relationally abusive to his wife. Moreover, these are not isolated or one-off incidents, but rather a pattern and practice of behavior that we believe is consistent with sociopathy and narcissistic personality disorder.

Among the misconduct we have documented in this space is Anderson’s scorched-earth litigation strategy in his divorce. To be clear: We recognize that marriages sometimes do not work out. But Henry VIII notwithstanding, there is an obligation, outlined in the Episcopal marriage vows, “to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, until death do us part. This is my solemn vow.”

And even in divorce proceedings, this means scorched-earth tactics are unacceptable. That is doubly the case when, as here, one of the litigants is a priest. 

Yet, it appears that Anderson’s divorce proceedings have dragged on for years. And while this author no longer practices law, our best estimate is that Anderson has spent at least $400,000 on litigation, even as he pleads poverty in his divorce proceedings and hangs out at Daddy’s multi-million dollar crib.

As to Anderson’s claims in his legal pleadings that his wife is mentally ill, we have researched those and concluded that they are false. Thus, we believe Anderson is attempting to perpetrate a fraud upon the court, in violation of Episcopal clergy disciplinary canons.

Nice guy, eh?

Possible mortgage fraud

Speaking of, there’s an interesting wrinkle in Anderson’s divorce proceedings, one that involves his father.

On his application for a mortgage on his previous $4 million home, Anderson expressly told Rocket Mortgage that a $1 million transfer from Mark’s father (Mark Anderson Dep. Wife’s Exhibit 2, pp. 174)  was part of a “normal gifting program” and expressly stated, “This is not a loan.”

Anderson now claims, during the divorce, that the same transfer was a loan from his parents. John Q. Anderson, Anderson’s father, also contradicted his son and testified that the money was a gift (John Q. Anderson Dep. pp. 19:14-19.), but then contradicted himself saying that in order to get $200,000, the wife agreed to a $1.2 million loan she never signed or knew about. (Of course, if Anderson disputes our conclusions, he’s more than welcome to send us written documentation that his wife agreed to this loan. We’ll wait.)

To be clear: A spouse cannot be part of a loan to which they neither consented in writing, nor had actual knowledge.

Further, Anderson, before his father testified, categorically denied that there had been a gift: “There was never $1 million gifted to us.” (Mark Anderson Dep. pp 46:17-23.) His filed memorandum admits that his father supplied the gift letter “to assist them with obtaining financing,” while arguing that the money was actually a loan. (Memorandum, p. 5, para. 11; p. 6, para. 13.) Put simply, Anderson’s position appears to depend on admitting that the lender was intentionally misled, so that the same transfer he can now claim is a marital debt rather than a gift.

The mortgage application also states that no non-disclosed loans existed, while listing a $12.17 million trust as Anderson’s asset and using it to calculate more than $35,000 in monthly asset-depletion income. Anderson signed the application, certifying that its information was “true, accurate, and complete.” (Notice PDF pp. 179, 181, 183.) The trust is relevant because Anderson is now seeking alimony and child support from his wife (who is a doctor, but has no assets of her own), claiming that he needs those payments from his wife to maintain the standard of living to which he became accustomed during the marriage.

Okay, right there, we’re calling BS. Not only is the $1.2 million not a loan (unless Anderson wants to admit that he engaged in mortgage fraud), but no priest needs a $4 million crib. Not even a narcissistic, sociopathic a-hole, which is exactly what Anderson appears to be. And if he does feel the need for a house like this, he can damned well either get the money from his trust fund, or hit up Daddy.

Additionally, while we do not have access to the trust documents, the whole thing about his trust fund is problematic. Not only are we unaware of any trust that would allow the equitable owner to withdraw assets as Anderson described, but the numbers don’t add up. Moreover, if the lifestyle to which Anderson became accustomed during his marriage is predicated on monthly withdrawals from his trust fund, then he should be paying his wife alimony and child support, not the other way around.

In short, this is an ugly example of what appears to be an extreme case of narcissistic entitlement. And we love how Anderson, in his divorce pleadings, swears up and down that he engaged in mortgage fraud, which, again, would be a violation of Canon IV.4.1.h.6’s prohibition on fraud.

Potential tax fraud

The fourth issue is the tax treatment of Anderson’s clergy income. His taxes show that nearly all of his employment compensation was treated as tax-exempt clergy housing income, even though the records indicate that he did not live in the residence claimed as his clergy housing during most of the relevant period. This left his trust income as essentially his only taxable income. He also refuses to pay half of the marital tax bill, leaving it entirely to his wife to pay.

We’re certainly not tax law experts, but we’re confident that, to claim the housing allowance on their taxes, clergy need actually to live in the claimed housing.

We’re pretty sure the IRS will be interested to learn of Anderson’s creative approach to these issues. And we are prepared to bet that the IRS learns of these issues in record time.

What next?

So, what happens next?

That’s an interesting question, and the Episcopal Diocese of Florida has been a hot mess since Bishop Howard’s departure. (Indeed, Howard’s questionable practices around his own mortgage underscore why bishops must be held accountable for their misconduct, versus being allowed to slip off quietly into retirement.)

But no matter how things play out, we can say this: Anderson’s behavior is in no way consistent with being a priest and serve only to damage the Body of Christ. Moreover, we believe the only reason Anderson is a priest is to bolster his narcissistic supply.

We also want to be very clear: Any priest who cannot treat their spouse with affection and respect, even in the context of divorce proceedings, is a pathetic POS. Feel free to quote us.

We’ll have more to say on these issues over time.

Following is Anderson’s deposition in the divorce proceedings. Note his efforts to claim that the $1.2 million from his father was a loan, not a gift, despite his father’s written statement to the contrary. But, then, if Anderson is telling the truth, it logically follows that he committed mortgage fraud. And no, “I didn’t read what I was signing” is not an excuse for courage fraud.

Here is the deposition of John Anderson, Mark Anderson’s father. Note the inconsistencies involving the $1.2 million gift from John to his son, which was used to purchase a home.

In this document, Anderson sets forth his claims that his wife is mentally ill. As stated previously, we believe this claim is an attempt to perpetrate a fraud on the court.

In this legal memorandum, Anderson argues that his father’s $1.2 million actually is a loan. We call BS — unless Anderson wants to admit to mortgage fraud and provide a written promissory note signed by his wife. (And trust us, we’ll let banking regulators know in record time if that is the case.)