Latty v. St. Joseph's Society of the Sacred Heart, Inc.
17 A.3d 155
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- Affair between Fr. Francis E. Ryan and Anna Senna allegedly occurred in late 1940s–1950s; Ryan fathered Carla Latty (1952) and Adrian Senna (1940s).
- Anna Senna and Fr. Ryan are deceased; Carla and Adrian learned via DNA they are siblings and Ryan was likely father.
- In April 2009, Carla and Adrian sued the Josephite Fathers, Archdiocese, Archbishop, and Ryan’s estate in Baltimore City Circuit Court.
- Allegations included fraudulent concealment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring, negligent supervision/retention, and breach of fiduciary duty.
- The circuit court granted the society’s motion to dismiss with prejudice; Archdiocese/Archbishop were dismissed; Ryan’s estate not served.
- Appellants appeal the dismissal; the Court of Special Appeals affirms the circuit court’s dismissal of all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Josephite Fathers owe a legal duty to appellants? | Latty argues a special/confidential/fiduciary duty. | Society contends no such duty exists; no legal relationship. | No duty shown; claims dismissed. |
| Was there a confidential relationship between the parties? | Latty asserts priest-parishioner or familial confidences. | No presumptive confidential relationship; facts fail to show trust. | Confidential relationship not established. |
| Was there a fiduciary relationship giving rise to duties? | Latty asserts fiduciary duty from priest-children dynamic. | No fiduciary relationship; no contract or legal basis. | No fiduciary duty recognized. |
| Can negligent hiring/retention/supervision sustain liability? | Latty claims society knew of misconduct and is liable. | No substantial evidence of actionable misconduct; First Amendment concerns. | No viable negligent hiring/retention claim. |
| Did fraudulent concealment exist as a stand-alone duty? | Latty claims society owed disclosure of paternity. | No separate duty to disclose absent confidential/fiduciary relation. | No duty to disclose established; claim rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- From the Heart Church Ministries, Inc. v. African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, Mid-Atl. II Episcopal Dist., 370 Md. 152 (Md. 2002) (discusses limits of clergy malpractice and entanglement with doctrine)
- Borchers v. Hrychuk, 126 Md.App. 10 (Md. 1999) (confidential relationship not presumed between priest and parishioner)
- Blondell v. Littlepage, 413 Md. 96 (Md. 2010) (elements of fraudulent concealment require duty to disclose)
- Remsbγrg v. Montgomery, 376 Md. 568 (Md. 2003) (no general duty to control third parties absent special relationship)
- Upman v. Clarke, 359 Md. 32 (Md. 2000) (confidentiality in family/dependent contexts; not automatic in parent-child)
- Sellers v. Qualls, 206 Md. 58 (Md. 1955) (priest-parishioner confidences require actual trust and business dealings)
- Thiede v. Startzman, 113 Md. 278 (Md. 1910) (fiduciary-like duties arising from trust or confidence)
- Harris v. Jones, 281 Md. 560 (Md. 1977) (emotional distress severity standards; severity required)