Doe v. Bellevue Baptist Church

1

JOHN DOE ET AL. v. BELLEVUE BAPTIST CHURCH

No. W2022-01350-COA-R3-CV

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Jackson

November 7, 2023

Session September 12, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. CT-1556-20 Jerry Stokes, Judge

The parents of a child brought suit to personally recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress in relation to sexual abuse of their child that had been perpetrated by the defendant church's former paid volunteer coordinator. The church filed a motion to dismiss the parents' claims and argued that the parents' attempt to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress was not legally cognizable because the parents did not perceive any injury-producing event. The trial court countenanced this position and entered an order dismissing the parents' claims. The parents then filed a motion seeking relief from the dismissal order and alternatively, to amend their complaint. The trial court ultimately denied the parents' motion, following which the present appeal ensued. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Tenn R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed and Remanded

Gary K. Smith and Karen M. Campbell, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellants, John Doe and Jane Doe.

William R. Johnson, Brentwood, Tennessee, for the appellee, Bellevue Baptist Church.

ARNOLD B. GOLDIN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS R. FRIERSON, II, and CARMA DENNIS MCGEE, JJ., joined.

OPINION

ARNOLD B. GOLDIN, JUDGE

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Appellants in this appeal, hereinafter referred to as "the Parents," commenced litigation in the trial court alleging that James Hook ("Mr. Hook"), a former paid volunteer coordinator at Bellevue Baptist Church ("Bellevue"), had perpetrated "extended horrific acts of sexual abuse" on their minor daughter ("the Child"). In addition to asserting several claims against Bellevue on behalf of the Child concerning this abuse, the Parents brought their own individual claims against Bellevue for negligent infliction of emotional distress ("NIED"). According to the complaint, Bellevue "knew or should have known that Hook was spending too much time with certain minors" and "failed to investigate and prevent Hook from creating opportunities for Hook to be alone with [the Child]." The claims asserted on behalf of the Child, which have now been resolved, are not at issue in this appeal.

The complaint details how Mr. Hook encouraged the Child, then fifteen years old, to volunteer at Bellevue on Sundays and Wednesdays and how he began showing her particular attention during her volunteer sessions. Concerning the later abuse committed by Mr. Hook against the Child on Wednesday nights, the complaint alleges as follows:

38. James Hook took his older children to Bellevue Baptist on Wednesday nights and dropped them off in another part of the children's area. Hook would then go to the room where [the Child] was working to stop by to say "hi." After talking with her for a short time, he would convince [the Child] to leave with him. No adult there ever questioned this or prevented him from taking [the Child] from the area.

39. After leaving the child care area, Hook, then 43 years old, took [the Child], 15, to other areas on the Bellevue campus including the Pavilion and outdoor bathrooms where he kissed her and had other physical contact with her. Hook would return [the Child] to the child care area before the Wednesday night program was ended.

Although the complaint notes that the Child stopped volunteering at the Wednesday night program in approximately April 2019, it avers that the abuse by Mr. Hook continued, stating as follows:

Hook convinced [the Child] to repeatedly sneak out of her home in the middle of the night and he began picking her up and taking her to a park where he continued to assault her. This occurred numerous times. After these encounters, Hook would drop [the Child] off a mile away from her home where she would have to walk back early in the morning.

According to the complaint, however, law enforcement discovered Mr. Hook and the Child at a park in the back of Mr. Hook's vehicle on May 5, 2019, allegedly involved in acts of intimacy. Mr. Hook was arrested and eventually pled guilty to "sexual battery by an authority figure."

Notably, in outlining these various instances of abuse, the complaint does not assert any facts pointing to the Parents' direct observation of Mr. Hook's abuse, nor does the complaint allege any facts depicting the Parents' arrival at any of the scenes of abuse in the aftermath before the scenes were materially altered.^[1] As discussed below, the absence of such allegations has proven to be a significant point of contention among the parties in this case.

Subsequent to the filing of the lawsuit against it, Bellevue moved to dismiss the Parents' NIED claims, specifically arguing in a contemporaneously-filed supporting memorandum that the Parents "failed to allege any facts to support a claim for NIED." In pertinent part, Bellevue noted that "[the Parents] did not witness Mr. Hook sexually abusing their daughter" and "did not perceive any injury producing event." A hearing was later held on Bellevue's motion to dismiss, and the trial court ultimately agreed that the Parents' lack of perception was fatal to their NIED claims, stating as follows in its oral ruling:

[I]n terms of being able to perceive what this child has gone through having witnessed any parts of it, I don't see anything in the Complaint that suggests that the parents did....I have to look at the Complaint, and based on what's been alleged I don't see that the parents have witnessed anything, observed anything, suspected anything. So they have no sensory perception of what may have been going on to lead them to have a claim for NIED.

So I'm going to grant the motion to dismiss as to the parents' claim[.]

A written order dismissing the Parents' claims was later entered on November 10, 2020. At the time, the Child's claims remained outstanding, and the trial court denied a subsequent request by Bellevue that the dismissal order concerning the Parents' claims be certified as a final judgment.

Litigation in the case continued, and on April 19, 2022, a Rule 31 mediator filed a report regarding mediation that had taken place the prior month and stated that all matters concerning the Child were resolved "pending approval" by the trial court. Subsequently, on June 15, 2022, the Parents filed a motion seeking relief from the November 10, 2020, dismissal order pursuant to Rules 54.02 and 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure and, alternatively, to amend their complaint pursuant to Rule 15 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. As a basis for their motion, the Parents asserted that new evidence from depositions taken in January 2022 revealed that Bellevue had been on notice of suspicious behavior of Mr. Hook in February 2019 but nonetheless had failed to warn them.

Bellevue opposed the Parents' motion, arguing in pertinent part that there were no valid grounds for the court to reconsider its order, that there was no evidence that the Parents had any sensory perception of any alleged injury to the Child, and that there was no basis for the Parents to "allege another negligence claim, purportedly not NIED," multiple months after discovery of the new evidence. In an ensuing hearing on the motion, the trial court signaled its agreement with Bellevue's position, stating as follows: "[A]fter looking at everything that's been submitted and looking at the existing case law, I see no basis for reopening the same claims but naming it failure to warn in this instance." Later, in an order entered on August 29, 2022, the trial court denied the Parents' motion to amend, denied relief from the order of dismissal regarding their NIED claims, and formally dismissed the case as to all Plaintiffs, specifically noting in connection therewith that the case as to the Child was resolved. This appeal followed.

ISSUES PRESENTED

In their appellate brief, the Parents initially raise the issue of whether the trial court erred in dismissing their claims for NIED "based upon learning that their daughter had been sexually assaulted by a former employee of [Bellevue]." They also raise the issue of whether the trial court erred in "denying [their] Motion to reconsider the Motion to Dismiss . . . under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.02 and 60.02(5) or in the alternative to allow [them] to amend the complaint under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15."

For its part, Bellevue does not seek any relief from the trial court's judgment and requests that we affirm the trial court's orders in light of existing precedent.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

As noted above, the Parents challenge the propriety of the trial court's dismissal of their NIED claims upon Bellevue's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, while also raising the question of whether the trial court erred in denying their motion seeking relief from the dismissal order and, alternatively, to amend their complaint. Whereas we review the first of these issues de novo, with no presumption of correctness, we review the latter matters for an abuse of discretion. See Khan v. Regions Bank 572 S.W.3d 189, 194 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018) ("A trial court's decision to grant a Rule 12.02(6) motion to dismiss is a question of law that we review de novo with no presumption of correctness."); Discover Bank v Morgan, 363 S.W.3d 479, 487 (Tenn. 2012) (noting that motions to revise under Rule 54.02 and motions for relief under Rule 60.02 are both reviewed for an abuse of discretion); Pratcher v. Methodist Healthcare Memphis Hosps., 407 S.W.3d 727, 741 (Tenn. 2013) ("Trial...