Sex-abuse claim against clerics found untimely

Listen to this article

The delayed discovery statute, Minn. Stat. sec. 541.073, subd. 2 (1996), did not apply to sexual abuse claims brought against two clergymen in 1997 for abuse that occurred between 1969 and 1975, ruled the Court of Appeals.

In 1997, two brothers brought claims of sexual abuse against two clergymen, a Catholic church and the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis for abuse that allegedly occurred more than 20 years earlier.

A District Court judge dismissed the claims, finding that the statute of limitations had run.

The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting the brothers’ argument that they were not aware of the causal connection between the actions of the clergymen and their injuries until 1991, and therefore, the six-year statute of limitations began to run in that year.

“[The brothers] did not have a physical, psychological or emotional disability that prevented them from recognizing that abuse by [the clergymen] caused their injuries. [The brothers] knew or should have known that their injuries were caused by sexual abuse six years prior to commencing litigation in 1997,” wrote Judge G. Barry Anderson.

The nine-page unpublished opinion is John Doe 28B and John Doe 28A v. Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, et al., Minnesota Lawyer No. CA-643-00.

“It is clear that the statute begins to run at the time the abuse occurs and will run absent a disability which might serve to toll the statute,” said Minneapolis attorney Robert L. McCollum, who represented the Church of St. Albert the Great. “In the case at hand, both boys … never forgot the abuse. … These cases are not repressed memory cases. Both boys indicated that they simply tried not to think about what had happened. It is clear this does not qualify as a disability and will not serve to preclude that statute of limitations from running,” he added.

Jeffrey R. Anderson, who represented the two John Does, Daniel Allen Haws, who represented the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, and Joseph M. Stocco, who represented the Dominicans and the Church of St. Albert the Great were unavailable for comment.

Sexual abuse

John Doe 28A (born Sept. 11, 1958) and John Doe 28B (born May 11, 1957) allege that they were sexually abused by two clergymen between 1969 and 1975. The two John Does, who are brothers raised in a devout Catholic family, met Father Ronan Liles at a Boy Scout camp in 1969. Father Liles allegedly showered with the boys, and hugged and kissed them during the camping trip. After the trip, Father Liles regularly took the boys to the movies, miniature golf and out to eat. Liles also allowed the boys to stay at St. Albert’s rectory for overnight visits, during which the boys allegedly slept with Liles in his bed.

John Doe 28A claims that Liles began sexually abusing him in the summer of 1970, and that Father Liles’ sexual touching of him continued into John Doe 28A’s teenage years. In 1975, when 17-year-old John Doe 28A was intoxicated, Father Liles removed the teen’s underwear and attempted to penetrate him anally. John Doe 28A left the rectory and hitchhiked home at 4 a.m. that morning because he did not want to stay at the rectory.

Brother Edmund Frost lived at St. Albert’s rectory and also allegedly engaged in sexual contact with John Doe 28A. One evening, Brother Frost allegedly gave John Doe 28A alcohol, slept in the same bed with him, and kissed him on the mouth with his tongue. The next morning John Doe 28A allegedly woke up without his clothes on. John Doe 28A does not recall being upset by the alleged kiss but he was confused about why he did not have his clothes on.

According to John Doe 28B, Liles gave him alcohol when he stayed overnight at the rectory in 1971. He says that he remembers Liles kissed him with his tongue, but does not remember thinking that the kiss was unusual. John Doe 28B also alleges that Brother Frost masturbated him one night in 1973, and that he was surprised and upset by Brother Frost’s behavior.

In a series of incidents in 1973, when John Doe 28B was 16 years old, Liles allegedly showered with him, fondled his genitals, placed his penis between John Doe 28B’s legs and ejaculated, attempted to penetrate him anally and attempted to perform fellatio on him. John Doe 28B testified that Liles’ touching made him uncomfortable and that he “just wanted it over.” Even though John Doe 28B told Liles that his actions hurt and told him to stop, Liles allegedly continued to kiss John Doe 28B even after he graduated from high school when he was 18 years old. Both John Does continued to maintain contact with Liles after the alleged sexual contact ended.

John Doe 28A claims that he first began to recognize that he was abused in 1991, after he was a victim of a mugging. After the assault, John Doe 28A says he began having nightmares of sexual acts being perpetrated on him, and the face of Liles appeared in his dreams. In 1993, John Doe 28A disclosed the alleged acts of sexual abuse to a counselor during alcohol abuse treatment.

After completing alcohol treatment, John Doe 28A spoke to his brother about their experiences. The brothers then contacted the Archdiocese to report the alleged abuse, and were referred to Dr. Walter Bera for counseling. Dr. Bera testified that it took the brothers years to understand or even suspect that they were victimized because people in positions of authority and trust had victimized them. Bera further testified that the brothers did not know that they were victims of sexual abuse until John Doe 28A first had dreams about Father Liles in 1991. Bera believes that the brothers did not have reason to know that the acts of Liles and Frost were sexual abuse even though they remembered the acts at issue.

In 1997, the brothers filed suit against the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, the Church of St. Albert the Great, Liles, and Frost, but the District Court judge dismissed their sexual abuse claims because the statute of limitations had run. The brothers appealed.

Abuse and injury

The Court of Appeals began by addressing the brothers’ argument that they were not barred from bringing a claim of sexual abuse in 1997 — even though the abuse occurred from 1969 through 1975 — because they were not aware that they were sexually abused until 1991.

The court observed that personal injury claims based on intentional torts are generally governed by a two-year statute of limitations, but that if the plaintiff is under the age of 18 at the time of the action, the statute of limitations is suspended until one year after the plaintiff reaches the age of majority. Under the delayed discovery rule, which protects individuals who are psychologically, physically or emotionally unable to recognize that they have been abused within the statute of limitations period, a victim of sexual abuse must bring a suit within six years of the time that the victim knew or had reason to know that the injury was caused by the sexual abuse, continued the court.

“The critical issue then becomes: when did [the brothers] know or have reason to know that the injury was caused by the sexual abuse?” wrote Anderson. Even though this question is judged by an objective standard and is, in some contexts, a fact question for the jury, “summary judgment is appropriate where there is overwhelming evidence that a reasonable person in the same situation as complainant should have known they were abused,” observed the judge.

In sexual abuse cases, the statute of limitations begins to run immediately
unless there is some legal disability, for instance the victim’s age or a mental disability such as repressed memory of the abuse, wrote Anderson. The brothers do not allege any disability that prevented them from pursuing their claims against Father Liles and Brother Frost prior to 1991, and conceded that this is not a case of repressed memory, continued the judge.

“[T]he record shows that John Doe 28A and John Doe 28B were always seriously troubled about the contact and had more than a vague sense of shame. … Even though [the brothers] may not have verbalized or formally acknowledged their abuse, a reasonable person who felt upset about the sexual contact and lied to relatives in order to avoid talking about the sexual contact should have known of the abuse,” wrote Anderson. “Although Dr. Bera’s testimony demonstrates that [the brothers’] experiences were undoubtedly confusing and painful, his testimony does not present a legally sufficient explanation for [their] delay in bringing this action. Instead, Dr. Bera’s testimony attempts to establish that [the brothers] were unable to make a causal connection between the sexual contact and sexual abuse.”

Citing the Minnesota Supreme Court’s 1996 decision in Blackowiak v. Kemp — which held that “concepts of sexual abuse and injury within the meaning of [the] statute are essentially one and the same” — the court found that the brothers’ subjective inability to recognize that the sexual contact was in fact sexual abuse does not delay the statute of limitations from running, absent a disability.

“The record shows that [the brothers] had feelings of guilt and shame from the time that the incidents took place. Accordingly, [the brothers] knew or should have known that their injuries were caused by sexual abuse six years prior to commencing litigation in 1997,” Anderson wrote.