878 F. Supp. 2d 923
N.D. Ill.2012Background
- Anderson sues the Holy See, the Bishop, and Church affiliates in a putative class for abuse alleged to have occurred in the 1950s–1960s; Bishop moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and 8(a).
- The Holy See directs Church activities in the U.S.; the Bishop is appointed by the Holy See and oversees the Chicago Archdiocese.
- Abuse occurred at Maryville Academy and St. Joseph’s Orphanage by priests and lay employees; Anderson was a minor at the time and later required ongoing psychiatric care.
- Anderson sought redress beginning in 2002–2003; the Archdiocese conducted investigations in 2005 and communications in 2005–2010 reference statutes of repose and settlement discussions.
- Illinois 1991 statute of repose (735 ILCS 5/13-202.2(b)) barred childhood sexual abuse claims; the statute was repealed in 1994, but the 1991 Act vested a right to defenses that the Bishop retains; the Court concludes the claims are barred and addresses waiver/estoppel arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1991 Illinois repose bars the claims | Anderson overcomes via waiver/estoppel theories | Bishop relies on the 1991 repose to bar claims | Yes; 1991 repose bars claims. |
| Whether the Bishop waived the statute of repose | Waiver implied by letters and practice | No express/implied waiver; Bishop reserved rights | Waiver not shown. |
| Whether equitable estoppel applies to bar the repose defense | Bishop’s conduct induced delay | No pre-expiration reliance; post-expiration conduct insufficient | Estoppel not established. |
| Whether judicial estoppel applies to the Bishop’s repose defense | Past settlements show inconsistency | No inconsistent positions proven | Not established. |
| Whether estoppel by election applies | Bishop’s selective waiver amounts to election | No applicable election doctrine here | Not applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. The Augustinians, 396 Ill. App.3d 437 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2009) (applies repose to actions pending as of repeal date)
- M.E.H. v. L.H., 177 Ill.2d 207 (Ill. 1997) (repose barred by 1991 act; vested rights)
- Kuch v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 366 Ill.App.3d 309 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2006) (example of 1991 act effect)
- Doe v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, No. 04 L 002661 (Cir. Ct. Cook Co. 2005) (Cir. Ct. 2005) (illustrative case on repose)
- Teamsters & Employers Welfare Trust of Ill. v. Gorman Bros. Ready Mix, 283 F.3d 877 (7th Cir. 2002) (equitable estoppel considerations in limitations)
- Witherell v. Weimer, 118 Ill.2d 321 (Ill. 1987) (equitable estoppel applies to repose)
- Kale v. Obuchowski, 985 F.2d 360 (7th Cir. 1993) (settlement may show estoppel in some contexts)
- Ezekiel v. Michel, 66 F.3d 894 (7th Cir. 1995) (inconsistent positions require same facts)