Ahern v. Kappalumakkel, 26081.

• Decision Date: 22 August 2006
• Docket Number: No. 26081.,26081.
• Citation: 97 Conn.App. 189,903 A.2d 266
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: Doreen Ann AHERN v. Matthew KAPPALUMAKKEL et al.

903 A.2d 266

97 Conn.App. 189

Doreen Ann AHERN v. Matthew KAPPALUMAKKEL et al.

No. 26081.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued January 10, 2006.

Decided August 22, 2006.

Doreen Ann Ahern, pro se, the appellant (plaintiff).

Timothy P. Pothin, with whom, on the brief, were Hugh F. Keefe and Marisa A. Bellair, New Haven, for the appellee (named defendant).

Lorinda S. Coon, Hartford, for the appellee (defendant Archdiocese of Hartford).

SCHALLER, GRUENDEL and STOUGHTON, Js.

SCHALLER, J.

The plaintiff, Doreen Ann Ahern, appeals from the trial court's rendering of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Matthew Kappalumakkel and the Archdiocese of Hartford (archdiocese). The determinative issue on appeal is whether the court improperly granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment by concluding that a fiduciary relationship did not exist between the plaintiff and Kappalumakkel, and, therefore, the archdiocese was not liable for negligent supervision. We conclude that a fiduciary relationship did not exist and, accordingly, the archdiocese was not liable for negligent supervision.

The record reveals the following facts and procedural history. In April, 1996, the plaintiff, who was forty years old and had a long history of psychiatric and emotional problems, sought out the "advice, counsel and friendship" of Kappalumakkel. At the time, Kappalumakkel was serving as an associate priest at Our Lady of Victory Church in West Haven and was an employee of the archdiocese.¹ The plaintiff did not engage in formal counseling with Kappalumakkel; rather, their relationship involved mainly recreational activities such as home visits, lunch and dinner dates, shopping trips, walks on the beach and trips to see movies.² According to the plaintiff, at some point during their association, Kappalumakkel became aware of her emotional problems and, nevertheless, engaged her in a consensual, sexual relationship. The plaintiff also alleges that she eventually ended the sexual aspect of their relationship after which Kappalumakkel terminated all involvement with her.

Subsequently, on September 10, 2001, the plaintiff initiated the present action by way of a two count complaint. The first count alleged that Kappalumakkel owed the plaintiff a fiduciary duty by virtue of the priest-parishioner relationship and breached that duty when, despite knowledge of her emotional problems, he engaged her in "a close physical and intimate relationship." The complaint further alleged that Kappalumakkel's breach caused the plaintiff psychiatric and emotional injuries.

The second count of the plaintiff's complaint alleged that the archdiocese breached its duty to supervise Kappalumakkel. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the archdiocese "knew or should have known that ... Kappalumakkel had engaged in inappropriate behavior with the plaintiff" and, as a result, the archdiocese was liable for Kappalumakkel's breach of fiduciary duty.

In response to the plaintiff's complaint, both defendants filed numerous motions for summary judgment. On August 2 and 14, 2002, respectively, the archdiocese and Kappalumakkel moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the applicable statutes of limitations barred the plaintiff's action.³ Subsequently, on September 26, 2003, Kappalumakkel renewed and supplemented his earlier motion for summary judgment with the additional ground that the plaintiff's deposition testimony revealed that a fiduciary relationship did not exist between her and Kappalumakkel. On November 17, 2003, the archdiocese also filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment and argued not only that the claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations, but also that the plaintiff's claim amounted to a "heart balm" action, which is not recognized under Connecticut law.

On March 9, 2004, the court, A. Robinson, J., granted Kappalumakkel's motion for summary judgment on the ground that no fiduciary relationship existed and therefore that "the evidence fail[ed] to establish that ... Kappalumakkel owed the plaintiff a fiduciary duty." Judge Robinson, however, denied the archdiocese's motion for summary judgment on the statute of limitations and heart balm grounds, and declined to decide whether the plaintiff's negligent supervision claim could survive the dismissal of the underlying breach of fiduciary duty claim. Judge Robinson explained that because neither party had addressed this issue, she would not speculate as to the parties' positions on the matter.

Thereafter, on July 1, 2004, the archdiocese once again moved for summary judgment and argued: (1) because Judge Robinson found that no fiduciary duty existed between the plaintiff and Kappalumakkel, it could not be held vicariously liable for the alleged breach; (2) it could not be held vicariously liable for the alleged misconduct of Kappalumakkel because such misconduct was not, as a matter of law, within the scope of Kappalumakkel's employment; and (3) it could not be held liable for negligent supervision because an employer cannot be held liable for negligent supervision under circumstances in which the employee as a matter of law did not engage in tortious behavior.

On December 1, 2004, the court, Carroll, J., granted the archdiocese's motion for summary judgment on the ground that "[a]n essential element to the tort of negligent supervision is that the conduct of the employee whom the employer is accused of failing to supervise was itself tortious.... By virtue of Judge Robinson's finding that there existed no such fiduciary duty, this court is constrained to find that ... Kappalumakkel engaged in no tortious or actionable wrong for which liability could be imputed to the ... archdiocese." This appeal followed.

On appeal, the plaintiff first claims that Judge Robinson improperly granted Kappalumakkel's motion for summary judgment. In support of this claim, the plaintiff essentially argues that the court improperly concluded that a fiduciary relationship did not exist between her and Kappalumakkel. We disagree.

"Practice Book § 17-49 provides that summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party .... The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and that the party is, therefore, entitled to judgment as a matter of law.... On appeal, we must determine whether the legal conclusions reached by the trial court are legally and logically correct and whether they find support in the facts set out in the memorandum of decision of the trial court.... Our review of the trial court's decision to grant the defendant's motion for summary judgment is plenary." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bellemare v. Wachovia Mortgage Corp., 94 Conn.App. 593, 597, 894 A.2d 335 (2006).

At the outset, we note that a prerequisite to finding a fiduciary duty is the existence of a fiduciary relationship, and neither this court, nor our Supreme Court, has specifically addressed whether a clergy-parishioner relationship may give rise to a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. Our Supreme Court has chosen to maintain an imprecise definition of what constitutes a fiduciary relationship in order to ensure that the concept remains adaptable to new situations. See Alaimo v. Royer, 188 Conn. 36, 41, 448 A.2d 207 (1982) (our Supreme Court has "specifically refused to define a fiduciary relationship in precise detail and in such a manner as to exclude new situations, choosing instead to leave the bars down for situations in which there is a justifiable trust confided on one side and a resulting superiority and influence on the other" [internal quotation marks omitted]). Consequently, under Connecticut law, a fiduciary or confidential relationship is broadly defined as a relationship that is "characterized by a unique degree of trust and confidence between the parties, one of whom has superior knowledge, skill or expertise and is under a duty to represent the interests of the other.... The superior position of the fiduciary or dominant party affords him great opportunity for abuse of the confidence reposed in him." (Citations omitted.) Dunham v. Dunham, 204 Conn. 303, 322, 528 A.2d 1123 (1987), overruled in part by Santopietro v. New Haven, 239 Conn. 207, 213 n. 8, 682 A.2d 106 (1996).

In light of our Supreme Court's adaptable definition of what constitutes a fiduciary relationship, we see no reason why a fiduciary relationship cannot exist within the clergy-parishioner context. That said, because no Connecticut appellate case law directly addresses under what circumstances a clergy-parishioner relationship may give rise to an actionable fiduciary duty, it is useful to examine the relevant case law from other jurisdictions.

Although various state and federal courts have concluded that a clergy-parishioner relationship may constitute a fiduciary relationship, in those cases, "something more" than a general clergy-parishioner relationship was present. See Doe v. Hartz, 52 F. Sup.2d 1027, 1065 (N.D.Iowa 1999) ("courts permitting breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims against members of the clergy have ... required something more than a priest-parishioner relationship"). For example, the existence of a formal pastoral counseling relationship between a clergy member and a parishioner has been deemed significant in determining whether a fiduciary relationship was created.⁴ In F.G. v. MacDonell, 150 N.J. 550, 696 A.2d 697 (1997), the New Jersey Supreme Court concluded that a breach of fiduciary duty claim arising out of the sexual relationship between a clergyman and a parishioner who was seeking marital...