Doe v. Bishop of Charleston, 407 S.C. 128

Background

In 2007 the Diocese of Charleston entered a court‑approved class settlement to resolve claims by individuals born on or before August 30, 1980 who had been sexually abused as minors by diocesan agents; a claims period and arbitration process were established.
Appellants (three siblings and a parent) allege childhood sexual abuse by a diocesan priest between 1965–1971 and claim they did not receive notice of the class settlement; they sued in 2009 after the settlement claim/opt‑out period expired.
The Dorchester court’s July 30, 2007 approval order acknowledged several identified individuals had not received notice and stated such persons would not be bound by res judicata and could participate later under identical arbitration terms.
The court issued an August 31, 2007 clarification/supervisory order supra‑seding the July language, specifying that those who received actual notice had 120 days from receipt to present claims and that late claimants would be treated like other untimely claimants.
Trial court granted respondents’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion dismissing appellants’ complaints as barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel, and the statute of limitations; appellants appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether settlement language waived res judicata effect for future claimants	July order language exempted persons who lacked notice from res judicata and required respondents to honor settlement terms for later claimants	August clarification preserved the original 120‑day claims period and did not waive res judicata for future claimants	Court: Settlement does not waive res judicata for future claimants; August order controls
Whether appellants were bound by the class settlement (adequacy of notice/representation)	Appellants lacked sufficient notice and had inadequate representation, so they cannot be bound	Respondents: notice and procedures litigated and approved in Dorchester; appellants are class members	Court: Dismissal improper on pleadings — appellants are entitled to limited collateral review on notice and adequacy of representation; remand for fact development
Whether collateral estoppel bars appellants based on another ruling against a different plaintiff	Prior ruling against a different plaintiff binds appellants	Respondents assert the prior ruling precludes relitigation	Court: Collateral estoppel not applied without privity; dismissal on that ground was error
Whether statute of limitations bars appellants’ negligence/ negligent‑supervision claims	Statute of limitations tolled by Diocese’s concealment of abuse knowledge; negligent supervision is a separate tort whose accrual may be delayed	Defendants: limitations accrued decades ago from the acts of abuse and tolling does not apply; claims time‑barred	Court: Dismissal improper — allegations of systematic concealment could toll limitations for negligent‑supervision claims; remand needed

Key Cases Cited

Doe v. Marion, 373 S.C. 390 (2007) (Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal standard)
Charleston County School Dist. v. Harrell, 393 S.C. 552 (2011) (liberal construction of pleadings on dismissal)
Town of Summerville v. City of North Charleston, 378 S.C. 107 (2008) (questions of law reviewed de novo)
Weil v. Weil, 299 S.C. 84 (Ct. App. 1989) (judgment construction principles)
Hospitality Mgmt. Assocs., Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., 356 S.C. 644 (2004) (due‑process review for absent class members)
Richburg v. Baughman, 290 S.C. 431 (1986) (due‑process protections for absent class members; privity requirement for preclusion)
Doe by Doe v. Greenville Hosp. Sys., 323 S.C. 33 (Ct. App. 1994) (employer liability for negligent supervision in sexual‑assault context)
Degenhart v. Knights of Columbus, 309 S.C. 114 (1992) (elements of negligent supervision)
James v. Kelly Trucking Co., 377 S.C. 628 (2008) (employer liability is direct, not derivative)
Kreutner v. David, 320 S.C. 283 (1995) (discovery rule for negligence accrual)
Strong v. Univ. of S.C. Sch. of Med., 316 S.C. 189 (1994) (fraudulent concealment tolls statute of limitations)