82 A.3d 101
Me.2013Background
- William J. Picher sued the Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland (the Diocese) alleging fraudulent concealment related to sexual abuse by priest Raymond Melville; the case was before the Supreme Judicial Court on appeal from a summary judgment in favor of the Diocese following a prior remand (Picher I).
- After remand, only the intentional tort claim of fraudulent concealment remained; negligence claims were not at issue.
- Fraud-based claims require heightened pleading under M.R. Civ. P. 9(b) and proof by clear and convincing evidence.
- To prove fraudulent concealment, Picher needed to show the Diocese knew a material fact, had a legal/equitable duty to disclose it, intentionally concealed it to induce reliance, and that Picher relied to his detriment.
- The record contained no direct or circumstantial evidence that the Diocese knew Melville had sexually abused minors before or during Picher’s abuse; information the Diocese might have had did not disclose prior sexual abuse by Melville.
- The Superior Court therefore concluded Picher failed to establish a prima facie case of fraudulent concealment; discovery rulings (redacted records and denial of a late deposition) were also upheld as not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was improper because facts should be viewed with all favorable inferences | Picher: evidence permits inference Diocese knew of Melville’s misconduct and concealed material facts | Diocese: no evidence it knew Melville was a sexual abuser of minors; summary judgment proper | Court: Affirmed summary judgment — no evidence Diocese knew material facts and thus no duty to disclose |
| Whether fraudulent concealment elements should be applied broadly | Picher: elements applied too narrowly; Diocese had motive and opportunities to conceal | Diocese: elements require proof of actual knowledge and duty to disclose; plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence | Court: Elements require actual knowledge of material fact and duty to disclose; plaintiff failed to meet burden |
| Whether Diocese had duty to disclose or a special/fiduciary relationship with Picher | Picher: Diocese’s relationship imposed disclosure duties | Diocese: no special/fiduciary relationship shown; no duty existed | Court: No evidence of special/fiduciary relationship or duty to reveal information about Melville |
| Whether discovery rulings (redacted records, denial of late deposition) were an abuse of discretion | Picher: redactions prevented meaningful use of records; needed to depose specific person after discovery closed | Diocese: court acted within discretion in limiting discovery and protecting privacy; summary judgment timely | Court: No abuse of discretion in discovery rulings; summary judgment proper before extended discovery expired |
Key Cases Cited
- Picher v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, 974 A.2d 286 (Me. 2009) (remand decision framing fraudulent concealment claim and standards)
- Estate of Smith v. Cumberland Cnty., 60 A.3d 759 (Me. 2013) (standard of de novo review for summary judgment)
- Bean v. Cummings, 939 A.2d 676 (Me. 2008) (heightened pleading under Rule 9(b) for fraud claims)
- Barr v. Dyke, 49 A.3d 1280 (Me. 2012) (fraudulent concealment elements and clear-and-convincing proof requirement)
- Fortin v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, 871 A.2d 1208 (Me. 2005) (analysis of special or fiduciary relationships with the Diocese)
- Flaherty v. Muther, 17 A.3d 640 (Me. 2011) (plaintiff’s burden to establish prima facie case at summary judgment)
- Throckmartin v. Century 21 Top Realty, 226 P.3d 793 (Wyo. 2010) (fraudulent concealment requires defendant’s awareness of concealed facts)
- Nieves-Romero v. United States, 715 F.3d 375 (1st Cir. 2013) (no abuse of discretion for granting summary judgment before expiration of extended discovery)