Given that the Anglicans took Catholic buildings to form their parish, the building should revert to the true owner.
Did the Anglicans somehow get away with stealing title from the RCC or one of it's incorporated affiliates, here in the United States [at some time in the past] or are you just making things up?
The judge possibly erred when she said that it's not the court's place to determine who is the rightful pastor. But then again the complainants may not have cited the proper statutes and precedents.
Although the court cannot wade into disputes and declare which religious views in themselves are correct, they can indeed and have in the past, been called into settle disputes over control of the office of "presiding pastor" in particular.
See Berry v. Society of St.Pious X, Cal Appellate 4th, page 369-373 for more insight to this issue. The same case can be found in other legal reference volumes also.
In California law, it hinges upon what is stated in the Articles of Incorporation. Stated method of succession to "the office of the Apostle" or pastor, or whoever is to be ultimately in control, is one of the few things required of Corporate Sole to be stipulated in State filings. With non-profit Corporate Religious it is similar, but more in-depth.
Just as a church body must follow it's stated Articles in regards to succession of, replacement of [including removal of] an occupant of clerical office, they must also follow their Articles in regards to disposition of properties and debts, if there comes a time for the fellowship to be dissolved.
If there is no provision in the Articles that this particular church body can vote it's properties over to another (by a vote of the membership) then such voting has no real force of law. Similarly, if the authority to replace or remove a pastor is not stipulated to be by a vote of the membership, but is stated to be some other method, then that method must be followed, and is most certainly adjudicable, when or if it is not.
If the Articles under which this fellowship operates are in submission to named higher Anglican authorities [entities] in regards to who exactly will pastor there, and who will not or cannot (which is highly possible) there is clear precedent that the articles must be followed, and the current stubborn priest be most likely*(?) be legally removed. I add the question mark due to my own not having direct immediate access to any filed Articles, or the "church rules" which can be found, or should be found in the files of the local church itself. (Removing, tampering or altering such files is a felony in the State of California, by the way...)