New fraud case filed

Listen to this article

The Archdiocese of Milwaukee can be sued for fraud in cases alleging sexual molestation by priests following a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision earlier this month. WLJ File Photo

A high court decision, which opened the door for plaintiffs to move forward against the Milwaukee Archdiocese for allegedly covering up the actions of priests accused of sexual molestation, is seen as creating bright lines for the statute of limitations when alleging fraud.

On July 11, the state Supreme Court affirmed earlier circuit court and court of appeals decisions which denied people alleging sexual molestation by Roman Catholic priests the ability to bring negligence claims, but opened the door for them to sue for fraud.

“In Wisconsin, this is huge, because it’s the first crack in the armor and the shield of the diocese in Milwaukee,” attorney Jeffrey R. Anderson said of the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s ruling to allow victims alleging sexual abuse by Catholic clergy to sue for fraud.

New Suit Filed

Following the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision, Anderson filed a new fraud suit on behalf of a woman who alleged a priest abused her and other girls because he was placed in parishes and hospitals without informing parishioners and parents of his history.

Bruce MacArthur, a priest who moved between parishes in South Dakota and Wisconsin during the 1960s and 1970s has been the subject of several sexual assault cases and served prison time in Texas after being convicted of trying to rape a woman in a nursing home.

According to the suit, prior to being sent to Milwaukee in 1965, parents of at least four girls accused MacArthur of molestation in two parishes in South Dakota, and he underwent two weeks of treatment at a New Mexico center and also spent time at a retreat house.

In taped statements from a 2003 suit filed in South Dakota, he described himself on the videotape as a “rotten priest” with “no way of stopping his abuse.”

MacArthur, 85 and retired, now lives in a residence outside St. Louis for abusive priests.

“He has a long history and now that the crack is open, there is a light and a call to action,” said Anderson, who filed the suit in Milwaukee County Circuit Court on July 19 and intends to continue bringing suits as people come forward.

John A. Rothstein, who is a defense attorney for the Archdiocese, admitted that the diocese is aware of the new suit, but he was not aware of any other potential suits at this time.

Court Opens Door

The Supreme Court’s July 11 ruling opened the door for such cases. Victims will have a six-year window to file lawsuits against the Archdiocese for knowingly placing priests with recorded instances of sexual abuse against children in parishes without properly informing the community.

In the written decision, Justice Patience Drake Roggensack stated that the accrual of the fraud claims is “when the plaintiffs discovered or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered” that the Archdiocese alleged fraud was a cause of their injuries.

Rothstein said he was not necessarily surprised by the ruling and appreciated the Supreme Court’s guidance on the cases.

“All lawyers who are in practice appreciate bright lines, something which can be done with a sense of assurance in terms of Wisconsin law, and we now have some bright guidelines which I think will be helpful for all persons involved in the judicial process,” said Rothstein.

Cases Head Back to Court

The Supreme Court decision stemmed from three prior cases brought by four victims involving two priests, Siegfried Widera and Franklyn Becker, who served at Milwaukee parishes before being moved to California. The alleged transgressions occurred in the 1970s and 1980s.

“As it applies to these cases, Becker and Widera had been knowingly moved by the Archdiocese decades ago, but victims were not aware of the cover-up until 2002 or 2003,” said Anderson. “Therefore, the court ruled that their cases cannot be dismissed by statute of limitations.”

Although the court mandated that the cases be remanded for further proceedings in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, Rothstein said the cases are far from settled.

He pointed to Justice Roggensack’s comments in the decision which note that, despite denying the motion to dismiss for fraud, the Supreme Court is not precluding summary judgment if undisputed facts show that fraud claims accrued more than six years prior to the dates claims are filed.

“The first order of business for the trial court will of course be threshold question of timeliness,” said Rothstein, who expected to meet with a trial judge in five to seven weeks.

“I don’t think we’ll take a different approach, it’s just the Supreme Court directed that the issue of statute of limitations should have fuller factual background,” continued Rothstein. “We’ll follow that, but many of the undisputed facts will remain undisputed, like the 25 to 35 years of time we’re talking about from the time of the incidents.”

No Negligence

Anderson was disappointed that the court did not permit the pursuit of negligence claims, which sought to hold the Archdio-cese of Milwaukee accountable for failing to supervise Widera and Becker.

The ruling stated that the statute of limitatio
ns for the sexual abuse commenced on the date of the last offense. Since the last recorded case of abuse in the lawsuit occurred in 1982, the three-year term for filing suit had long expired.

In a separate opinion, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley and Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson supported the notion that victims of sexual abuse should be allowed to prove the church’s negligence in court.

“Decades have elapsed since the alleged wrongful conduct of the Archdiocese occurred, but that should not prevent the plaintiffs from having their day in court,” said Abrahamson in her dissent.

Anderson hoped the Wisconsin Legisla-ture would follow the leads of California and Delaware, which passed legislation that allowed suits to be brought within a designated window of time after the initial statute of limitations had expired.

“If you look at the blistering and scathing dissent from Justices Abrahamson and Bradley, they really chide the state for ducking the issue,” said Anderson.

On July 15, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles reached a record settlement of $660 million with 500 victims of sexual abuse. Anderson said the settlement stemmed from the state’s 2003 public policy change, which allowed victims to file claims within a one-year window.

Rothstein said the timing of the California settlement was “just serendipity” with relation to Wisconsin and that the state already has recently revised statutes regarding the allowance of claims to be brought against clergyman.

“In terms of legislation, the Legislature itself weighed this very question and has set the policy as we move forward and already been proactive,” said Rothstein, who pointed to statute 895.442, which was passed in 2003.

The statute notes that “any person who suffers an injury as a result of sexual contact with a member of the clergy that occurs while the person is under the age of 18 may bring an action against the member of the clergy for all damages caused by that sexual contact.”

The cause of action created in the statute is governed by sec. 893.587, which in turn allows suits to be brought until age 35.