Rice v. Diocese Altoona-Johnstown

212 A.3d 1055

Renee' A. RICE, Appellant

v.DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, Bishop Joseph Adamec (Retired), Monsignor Michael E. Servinsky, Executor of the Estate of Bishop James Hogan, Deceased, and Reverend Charles F. Bodziak

No. 97 WDA 2018

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued December 4, 2018

Filed June 11, 2019

Reargument Denied August 14, 2019

Alan H. Perer, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

Eric N. Anderson, Pittsburgh, for Adamec, appellee.

Ralph T. Forr, Altoona, for Bodziak, appellee.

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and STRASSBURGER,^* J.

OPINION BY KUNSELMAN, J.:

In 2016, Renee' A. Rice read the 37^th Investigative Grand Jury Report detailing a systematic cover-up of pedophile clergy in the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown. She sued the Diocese, Bishop Adamec, and Monsignor Michael E. Servinsky¹ ("the Diocesan Defendants") a few months later. She alleges that they committed fraud, constructive fraud, and civil conspiracy to protect their reputations and that of Reverend Charles F. Bodziak, her childhood priest and alleged abuser.

Because Fr. Bodziak allegedly molested Ms. Rice in the 1970s and 1980s, the trial court, relying on this Court's precedents and the statute of limitations, dismissed her lawsuit. Claiming the trial court misapplied the discovery rule, the fraudulent-concealment doctrine, and the statute of limitations for civil conspiracy, Ms. Rice appealed.

Ten months later, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided Nicolaou v. Martin , ––– Pa. ––––, 195 A.3d 880 (2018). The High Court emphasized the jury's prerogative, under the discovery rule, to decide whether a plaintiff's efforts to investigate a defendant were sufficiently reasonable to toll the statute of limitations. Nicolaou has opened the courthouse doors for Ms. Rice's case to proceed past the pleadings stage, notwithstanding this Court's precedents to the contrary.

Also, Ms. Rice's alleged circumstances allow her to argue to the finder of fact that the Diocesan Defendants owed her a fiduciary duty to disclose their ongoing cover-up and Fr. Bodziak's history of child molestation. By failing to disclose, the Diocesan Defendants' silence may have induced Ms. Rice to relax her vigilance or to deviate from her right of inquiry. The trial court, therefore, erred by not permitting her case to proceed according to her fraudulent-concealment theory.

Finally, even if a jury rejects those two tolling theories, Ms. Rice's civil conspiracy count remains viable. She alleges a continuing conspiracy and that the last act in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred in 2016. Based upon these allegations, Ms. Rice has filed this lawsuit well within the statute of limitations for civil conspiracy.

Accordingly, we reverse the order granting judgment on the pleadings to the Diocesan Defendants and remand for the case to proceed in the trial court.

I. Facts Alleged in the Complaint

Ms. Rice alleges in her First Amended Complaint² that, as a child and teenager, she belonged to St. Leo's Church in Altoona. She attended the Catholic school associated with her parish, when the Diocesan Defendants assigned Fr. Bodziak to serve as St. Leo's pastor. They did this, despite knowing or having reason to know he had molested young girls. Fr. Bodziak began sexually abusing Ms. Rice in the mid-1970s. She was about nine-years-old, and he continued abusing her until she turned 14.

During that time, Fr. Bodziak asked Ms. Rice's parents if she could clean the rectory where he lived. They agreed. While she cleaned his home, Fr. Bodziak would give Ms. Rice wine and sexually assault her.

Ms. Rice also played the organ at St. Leo's Church and sang at masses. Fr. Bodziak – under the auspices of allowing Ms. Rice to rehearse her musical skills – gave her a key to the church. However, while she practiced in the choir loft, Fr. Bodziak would come into the church to kiss and molest her. Over time, the abuse increased in frequency to twice a week in the priest's car, a nearby cemetery, the rectory, and the church.

Some 35 years later, the Attorney General of Pennsylvania convened the 37^th Statewide Investigative Grand Jury to examine child-sexual assault throughout the Altoona-Johnstown Diocese. It issued an official report of its findings on March 1, 2016.

From that report, Ms. Rice first learned that the Diocesan Defendants knew or should have known of Fr. Bodziak's pedophilia prior to assigning him to St. Leo's Church. The Diocesan Defendants kept the evidence about abusive priests in a secret archive, separate from other personnel files.

Ms. Rice asserted a confidential relationship between herself and the Diocesan Defendants, based upon her work as a parish organist, cantor, and rectory cleaner, coupled with her young age, Catholic schooling, and the trust she placed in the Diocesan Defendants to guide and to protect her. The Diocesan Defendants purportedly violated their corresponding fiduciary duty to warn her about Fr. Bodziak's past as a child predator. They thereby placed their own reputation and finances ahead of her safety and mental health.

As mentioned, Ms. Rice has asserted three claims – fraud, constructive fraud, and civil conspiracy. She also alleged new harms and exacerbation of old injuries upon reading the Grand Jury Report in 2016.

The Diocesan Defendants filed an answer and new matter, raising the statute of limitations as their primary defense. They argued, because the molestation last occurred in 1981, Ms. Rice's causes of action expired on October 23, 1987 – i.e. , two years after her 18^th birthday. To support that contention, they predominately relied upon two cases from this Court that had affirmed judgments on the pleadings in favor of pedophile clergy and various, corporate manifestations of the Catholic Church under the statute of limitations. See Meehan v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia , 870 A.2d 912 (Pa. Super. 2005), and Baselice v. Franciscan Friars Assumption BVM Province, Inc. , 879 A.2d 270 (Pa. Super. 2005) (both holding that the statute of limitations time-barred cases, because the victims should have known that the Church was potentially liable for any harm they suffered the moment a clergy member sexually assaulted them).

The trial court observed "that the law is trending toward allowing the discovery rule and the doctrine of fraudulent concealment to toll the statute of limitations in ... cases such as this." Trial Court Opinion, 12/15/17, at 10 (footnote omitted). However, it found itself "constrained to rule in accordance with the controlling law in Pennsylvania" and granted judgment on the pleadings to the Diocesan Defendants on all three of Ms. Rice's claims. Id.

Ms. Rice timely appealed that decision. Instead of ordering Ms. Rice to file a 1925(b) statement, the trial court relied on its opinion granting judgment on the pleadings to the Diocesan Defendants to serve as its 1925(a) opinion.

II. Analysis

When reviewing a grant of judgment on the pleadings, our scope of review is plenary, and our standard of review is de novo . Altoona Regional Health System v. Schutt , 100 A.3d 260, 265 (Pa. Super. 2014). Moreover, "every material and relevant fact well-pleaded and every inference fairly deducible therefrom are to be taken as true." Baker v. Rangos , 229 Pa.Super. 333, 324 A.2d 498, 508 (1974).

We may affirm a judgment on the pleadings only if:

there are no disputed issues of fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In determining if there is a dispute as to facts, the court must confine its consideration to the pleadings and relevant documents. On appeal, we accept as true all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint .... Only when the moving party's case is clear and free from doubt such that a trial would prove fruitless will an appellate court affirm a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Rubin v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc. , 170 A.3d 560, 564 (Pa. Super. 2017).

No one disputes that Ms. Rice made well-pleaded allegations; we thus accept them as true at this point in the litigation. In light of our standards and Ms. Rice's complaint, we turn to her three appellate issues. They are:

1. Did Ms. Rice plead sufficient facts giving rise to a jury question under the discovery-rule?

2. Did Ms. Rice plead sufficient facts to estop the Diocesan Defendants from asserting a statute-of-limitations defense under the doctrine of fraudulent concealment?

3. Does the statute of limitations for Ms. Rice's conspiracy claim begin to run only after the last act in furtherance of that conspiracy?

Rice's Brief at 3 (paraphrased for sake of clarity).

Ms. Rice's first two issues seek to toll the statute of limitations. In the event neither tolling theory prevails, her third issue challenges the dismissal of her civil-conspiracy claim as a misapplication of the statute of limitations. We address all three issues in turn.

A. Ms. Rice Alleged Sufficient Facts to Support Her Discovery-Rule Theory.

Ms. Rice's first appellate issue asserts the trial court misapplied the discovery rule and, therefore, erroneously dismissed her case, as a matter of law.

According to Ms. Rice, whether she exercised reasonable diligence in investigating the Diocesan Defendants' intentional torts is a factual question for a jury. She argues a reasonable person would not have suspected or investigated the Diocesan Defendants for those torts before the Grand Jury Report was unsealed in 2016. While conceding that Fr. Bodziak sexually abused her in the 1970s and 1980s, she claims "the Grand Jury Report gave her reason to investigate, for the first time, that the conspiracy and fraud committed by the Diocesan Defendants was the cause of her harm." Ms. Rice's Brief at 20, n. 2.

The Diocesan Defendants counter that this Court's precedents bar Ms. Rice's claims. They argue the trial court properly dismissed her suit under a two-year statute of limitations because Ms. Rice is "seeking damages as a result of the underlying harm" – i.e. , the molestation. Diocesan Defendants' Brief at 7. They believe Ms. Rice...