Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese Charlotte

Citations: 775 S.E.2d 918; 242 N.C. App. 538; 2015 N.C. App. LEXIS 696Docket: No. COA15–102.

Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina; August 18, 2015; North Carolina; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Plaintiff John Doe 1K filed a lawsuit against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte for tort claims related to sexual abuse by Father Kelleher in 1977 and 1978. Doe admitted he did not repress memories of the abuse and has been aware of his injuries since they occurred. His lawsuit, initiated in 2011, over 30 years post-abuse, was based on fraud claims, asserting that the Diocese misrepresented his safety under Father Kelleher's care. Doe argued that he could not have discovered the Diocese's alleged deception until 2010, following Kelleher's arrest and the emergence of other victims.

The trial court dismissed Doe's claims, concluding they were barred by the statute of limitations. The court emphasized that the discovery rule applies only if a plaintiff exercises reasonable diligence to uncover fraud. In this case, Doe's allegations of abuse should have alerted him to the possibility that the Diocese's assurances could be false. After reaching adulthood in 1980, Doe made no attempts to investigate the Diocese, acknowledging he had no further contact with them and that they had not concealed any information from him. Additionally, Doe had indicated awareness of his situation as early as 2006, when he sought retribution against the Diocese online, undermining his claims of ignorance until 2010.

The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the Diocese, stating that Doe’s failure to act upon inquiry notice regarding the truth of the Diocese's representations precluded his claims under North Carolina law, consistent with rulings in other jurisdictions.

Doe attended counseling sessions with Kelleher seven or eight times between 1977 and early 1978, during which Kelleher molested him in four to six meetings. Following the abuse, Doe experienced significant emotional distress, including depression and anxiety, for which he sought treatment. At the time of the abuse, he felt terrified and ashamed, leading him to refrain from reporting it. Despite not disclosing the abuse then, he retained a clear memory of the events and testified that he was never discouraged by any Church representatives from reporting the abuse.

In September 2005, while hospitalized, Doe reported the abuse to medical staff, noting he had previously disclosed it to an attorney, but was informed that the statute of limitations had expired. Between 2005 and 2008, he consulted attorney Jeff Anderson about civil claims against the Diocese, who also indicated that the statute of limitations had run out. In March 2006, Doe sought information on Kelleher and expressed his desire to expose the abuse on an internet message board for survivors of clerical abuse, acknowledging his knowledge of his victimization and his intention to seek retribution.

On September 10, 2009, Doe reported the abuse to the Albemarle Police Department impulsively, stating it was not influenced by new information. Kelleher was arrested on July 8, 2010, and following media coverage of the arrest, other victims came forward. The day after his report, Doe announced his intent to file charges despite being aware of the statute of limitations. Kelleher passed away in 2014 without facing conviction. Doe subsequently filed a complaint against the Diocese on September 28, 2011, and an amended complaint on July 26, 2012, alleging constructive fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent concealment, asserting that the Diocese abused its relationship of trust with him and failed to provide a safe environment, thus violating its duties to warn and protect him from abuse.

Doe testified during discovery that he was unaware of any facts or information that the Diocese concealed from him, which would have allowed him to file his lawsuit earlier. He denied that the Diocese misrepresented anything or acted in a way that caused his delay in filing. Following the abuse, Doe stated he had no interaction with the Diocese and claimed he could not explain the delay in pursuing his lawsuit.

On December 20, 2013, the Diocese filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that Doe's claims accrued at the time of the abuse, were tolled until he turned eighteen, and are now barred by the statute of limitations. Doe countered that he could not have reasonably discovered his claims until other victims of Father Kelleher's abuse came forward, and he argued for equitable estoppel to toll the statute of limitations.

The trial court granted the Diocese’s motion for summary judgment on July 11, 2014, and also excluded various evidence and testimony Doe sought to present, including expert testimony on the Catholic Church's procedures. Doe subsequently appealed the judgment.

In addressing the statute of limitations, Doe's claims are categorized as fraud and misrepresentation allegations, asserting that the Diocese misrepresented the safety of its supervision over Father Kelleher. Doe admitted to knowing about the abuse and his injuries since they occurred, relying on the discovery rule, which allows the statute of limitations to begin when a plaintiff becomes aware of facts enabling the discovery of wrongdoing. Doe contended he was not aware of the Diocese's knowledge of Kelleher's abusive behavior until 2010. However, the court found that Doe had been on inquiry notice nearly three decades earlier but failed to investigate diligently, thereby undermining his argument regarding the discovery rule.

Doe asserts a special relationship with the Diocese, trusting it would not deceive him. However, North Carolina law requires a duty of inquiry when an event raises suspicion, such as the alleged sexual abuse by Father Kelleher, which triggers the need to investigate the Diocese's conduct. Case law from various jurisdictions supports the notion that abuse by a priest prompts inquiry into the Diocese’s role. Doe's claims hinge on the Diocese's false assurances of safety, and the very occurrence of the abuse placed him on notice that those assurances might be untrue.

Crucially, Doe did not allege fraudulent concealment by the Diocese, acknowledging under oath that it did not misrepresent facts or impede his ability to file a lawsuit. He admitted to having no contact with the Diocese after the abuse and did not investigate potential claims, stating he could not explain his lack of action. Prior knowledge of the Diocese's possible misrepresentation is evidenced by a 2006 online post where he discussed being molested and seeking retribution from the Church. This undermines his assertion that he only recognized wrongdoing in 2010 upon learning of other victims.

As a result, since Doe was on inquiry notice almost three decades before filing his lawsuit and failed to take reasonable investigative steps, the trial court correctly determined that the statute of limitations barred his claims. Doe's argument for equitable estoppel based on alleged concealment and misrepresentation by the Diocese is also presented but lacks substantiation.

The argument that the Diocese concealed or misrepresented information to Doe after his alleged abuse is rejected due to a lack of evidence supporting such claims. For equitable estoppel to apply and prevent the statute of limitations from being invoked, the plaintiff must demonstrate that they were induced to delay filing due to the defendant's misrepresentations. Doe's deposition confirmed that he had no interactions with the Diocese following the abuse, indicating that there were no opportunities for the Diocese to mislead him. Thus, the trial court correctly determined there was no basis for Doe's argument. 

Additionally, Doe's challenge to the trial court’s decision to limit his expert witness's testimony and exclude related evidence is rendered moot, as the excluded evidence did not pertain to whether Doe acted with reasonable diligence in pursuing his claims. Therefore, any alleged errors in these evidentiary rulings are deemed harmless. Ultimately, the court concludes that Doe's claims against the Diocese are barred by the statute of limitations and affirms the summary judgment. The claims for negligent supervision and retention, civil conspiracy, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress were also abandoned by Doe. Judges Bryant and Stephens concur in the decision. John Doe 1K is used to protect the plaintiff's identity, while Joe Doe 2K is not involved in this appeal.