Colosimo v. Roman Cath. Bishop of Salt Lake

Decision Date13 March 2007
Docket NumberNo. 20050074.,20050074.
Citation156 P.3d 806,2007 UT 25
PartiesCharles Matthew COLOSIMO, an individual, and Ralph Louis Colosimo, an individual, Plaintiffs and Petitioners, v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF SALT LAKE CITY dba Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake City, a Utah corporation sole; Archdiocese of San Francisco, a foreign entity; Oblates of St. Francis de Sales, a foreign entity; Judge Memorial High School Board of Financial Trustees, a Utah corporation; Thomas P. O'Neill, an individual; Francis J. Gross, an individual; W. Ivan Cendese, an individual; James F. Rapp, an individual; John Does I-V, individuals and/or entities, Defendants and Respondents.
CourtUtah Supreme Court

Matthew F. McNulty, III, Mark A. Wagner, Tacy A. Hartman, Salt Lake City, for Roman Catholic Bishop, Judge Memorial.

Tim Dalton Dunn, Stephen D. Alderman, Salt Lake City, for Archdiocese of San Francisco.

Russell C. Fericks, Mark L. McCarty, Zachary E. Peterson, Salt Lake City, for Oblates of St. Francis de Sales, Thomas O'Neill, Francis Gross, W. Ivan Cendese.

On Certiorari to the Utah Court of Appeals

PARRISH, Justice:

INTRODUCTION

¶ 1 Ralph Louis Colosimo and Charles Matthew Colosimo filed suit against Judge Memorial High School and its former administrators (collectively, "Judge"); the Salt Lake Diocese, Judge's Board of Financial Trustees, the Oblates of St. Francis de Sales, the Archdiocese of San Francisco (collectively, the "institutional defendants"); and individual defendant James F. Rapp, a former teacher at Judge. The Colosimos seek damages arising from their alleged sexual abuse by Rapp more than three decades ago. The district court entered default judgment against Rapp, but dismissed the claims against the institutional defendants on statute of limitations grounds. The Colosimos appealed, arguing that the discovery rule tolled the running of the statute until they became aware of their claims against the institutional defendants. The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal. We granted certiorari to determine whether the Colosimos' awareness of the sexual abuse entailed a reasonable knowledge of, or a duty to inquire about, the facts necessary to support their claims that the institutional defendants knew of the abuse and failed to adequately supervise Rapp or prevent the abuse. For the reasons detailed below, we conclude that it did and therefore affirm the dismissal of the Colosimos' claims.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 2 Ralph and Charles allege that Rapp sexually abused them on repeated occasions from approximately 1970 to 1975. At the time of the alleged abuse, Rapp was a Catholic priest, a member of the Oblates, and a staff member of Judge. The Diocese had supervisory authority over Rapp in his teaching capacity, apparently sharing this responsibility with the Oblates, a group of Catholic priests who also supervised Judge. The Colosimos allege that the Archdiocese also "supervises and exerts control over the Diocese," although the Archdiocese disputes this claim.

¶ 3 Rapp allegedly began abusing Ralph in late 1970 or early 1971 when Ralph was a minor student at Judge, and the abuse allegedly continued after Ralph turned eighteen on September 20, 1971. Through Ralph, Rapp was introduced to the Colosimo family and allegedly began sexually abusing Ralph's younger brother Charles, sometimes while brandishing a gun. At some point in 1975, Rapp admitted to Ralph that he was a pedophile and that he was abusing Charles.

¶ 4 The Colosimos knew that they had been abused by Rapp and that they had suffered some immediate injury as a result. Ralph alleges, however, that he repressed the memory of most instances of the abuse until a professional therapist allowed "him to recover his memories and to understand the causal connection between the assaults and his injuries." Charles never forgot the abuse, but maintains that he "was unaware of the connection between the abuse and his injuries until he began therapy years later."

¶ 5 At the time of the abuse, the Colosimos knew that Rapp was a Roman Catholic priest, a teacher, and an Oblate and that these roles were intertwined in his position as an employee of Judge. Despite this knowledge, the Colosimos made no inquiry or investigation during the statutory period regarding any potential claims against any of the institutional defendants.

¶ 6 In May 2002, the Washington Post published an article detailing Rapp's history of sexually abusing young boys. It indicated that even though Judge students had complained about Rapp, school authorities had taken no apparent action against him. The article suggested that Rapp simply moved from state to state until an Oklahoma court eventually convicted him of two counts of lewd molestation. Upon reading the article, the Colosimos realized that the institutional defendants may have had knowledge of Rapp's pedophilic actions.

¶ 7 On February 18, 2003, the Colosimos filed suit against Rapp and the institutional defendants, asserting claims for aggravated sexual assault and battery, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and false imprisonment. The Colosimos allege that the institutional defendants knew that Rapp had sexually abused children prior to abusing the Colosimos, yet "deliberately concealed from [the Colosimos], other Judge students, and parishioners [their] knowledge of" Rapp's abusive history in order to protect their own interests. The institutional defendants responded with motions to dismiss, arguing that the statute of limitations had run.

¶ 8 The Colosimos opposed the motions to dismiss, contending that the discovery rule tolled the statute of limitations. In the alternative, they requested additional time to conduct discovery to obtain the evidence needed to resist the motions to dismiss. After considering the pleadings, memoranda, and affidavits on file, the district court treated the motions to dismiss as summary judgment motions and dismissed the Colosimos' complaint because it was not filed within the limitations period.

¶ 9 The Colosimos appealed to this court, which transferred the appeal to the court of appeals. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal, reasoning that the Colosimos' claims "do not fall within any of the recognized situations in which the discovery rule is applicable because [the Colosimos] could have brought their claims within the limitation periods based upon the available undisputed facts."1

¶ 10 This court granted the Colosimos' petition for certiorari. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Utah Code section 78-2-2(3)(a).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 11 On certiorari review, this court reviews the decision of the court of appeals, not the decision of the district court.2 "The applicability of a statute of limitations and . . . the discovery rule are questions of law, which we review for correctness."3 But the application of the discovery rule also "involves a subsidiary factual determination — the point at which a person reasonably should know that he or she has suffered a legal injury."4 Therefore, while we review the court of appeals' decision for correctness, we apply a summary judgment standard of review to the subsidiary factual determination, which requires us to "view the facts and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party."5

ANALYSIS

¶ 12 The Colosimos contend that summary judgment was erroneously granted because the running of the limitations period was tolled by the discovery rule. Specifically, they argue that their awareness of their sexual abuse put them on neither actual nor inquiry notice of potential claims against the institutional defendants. It is this issue on which we granted certiorari.

¶ 13 We begin by explaining that the discovery rule can toll the statute of limitations when there is (1) a statutory tolling provision, (2) an exceptional circumstance, or (3) fraudulent concealment. We then proceed to examine whether the limitations period on the Colosimos' claims was tolled for any of these reasons. We conclude that the period was not tolled because the Colosimos' knowledge of their abuse and the relationship between Rapp and the institutional defendants was sufficient to put them on inquiry notice of their claims. We therefore affirm the court of appeals.

I. THE COLOSIMOS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR APPLICATION OF THE DISCOVERY RULE

¶ 14 As a general matter, "a statute of limitations begins to run upon the happening of the last event necessary to complete the cause of action."6 Certain exceptions, however, operate to toll the statute. For example, in the case of a plaintiff who is under the age of majority or mentally incompetent, the statute of limitations will be tolled until the plaintiff is free from the disability.7 Because the Colosimos were minors when Rapp began abusing them, the statute was tolled until they turned eighteen. The Colosimos argue that the discovery rule continued to toll the statute even after they reached the age of majority. We therefore look to the discovery rule to determine whether the Colosimos' claims are time-barred.

¶ 15 The discovery rule tolls a statute of limitations "until the discovery of facts forming the basis for the cause of action."8 It operates either when provided for by statute (the "statutory discovery rule") or when required by equity (the "equitable discovery rule").9 The statute may be tolled under the equitable discovery rule when either exceptional circumstances or the defendant's fraudulent concealment prevents the plaintiff from timely filing suit.10 We accordingly address whether the limitations period on the Colosimos' claims was tolled because of an applicable statutory tolling provision, exceptional circumstances, or fraudulent concealment. In so doing, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
54 cases
  • OTTENS v. McNEIL
    • United States
    • Utah Court of Appeals
    • 26 Agosto 2010
    ...discovered the facts underlying the cause of action in time to commence an action within [the limitations period].” Colosimo v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Salt Lake, 2007 UT 25, ¶ 19, 156 P.3d 806 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Macris v. Sculptured Softwar......
  • Redwing v. Catholic Bishop for the Diocese of Memphis
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • 27 Febrero 2012
    ...employed by the diocese puts an alleged sexual abuse victim on inquiry notice of claims against the diocese); Colosimo v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Salt Lake City, 2007 UT 25, ¶ 50, 156 P.3d 806, 819 (Utah 2007) (concluding that parochial school students were on inquiry notice with regard to......
  • State v. Greuber
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • 3 Julio 2007
    ..."On certiorari review, this court reviews the decision of the court of appeals, not the decision of the district court." Colosimo v. Roman Catholic Bishop, 2007 UT 25, ¶ 11, 156 P.3d 806. Whether the Sixth Amendment applies is a question of law that we review for correctness. In assessing a......
  • Bistline v. Parker
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 14 Marzo 2019
    ...that a right accrues "upon the happening of the last event necessary to complete the cause of action." Colosimo v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Salt Lake City , 156 P.3d 806, 810 (Utah 2007) (internal citation omitted). In certain circumstances, however, Utah courts will apply a discovery rule ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Utah Standards of Appellate Review - Third Edition
    • United States
    • Utah State Bar Utah Bar Journal No. 23-5, October 2010
    • Invalid date
    ...discovery rule and the statute of limitations apply. See Ockey v. Lehmer, 2008 UT 37, ¶ 34, 189 P.3d 51; Colosimo v. Roman Catholic Bishop, 2007 UT 25, ¶ 11, 156 P.3d 806. (24) Whether a party has proven a prima facie case. See Handy v. U.S. Bank, 2008 UT App 9, ¶ 12, 177 P.3d 80. (25) Whet......
  • 2007 Case Summaries
    • United States
    • Utah State Bar Utah Bar Journal No. 21-3, June 2008
    • Invalid date
    ...as "an individual providing expert testimony in a legal proceeding" and thus did not violate the Act. Colosimo v. Roman Catholic Bishop, 2007 UT 25, 156 P.3d 806 (Affirmed) JNP* Two brothers that their former teacher, who was also their priest, sexually abused them on repeated occasions fro......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT