F.G. v. MacDonell

Decision Date22 July 1997
Citation150 N.J. 550,696 A.2d 697
PartiesF.G., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Reverend Alex MacDONELL, in his capacity as former Rector, and Reverend Fletcher Harper, in his capacity as Rector of All Saints' Episcopal Church, Bergenfield, New Jersey and St. Luke's Episcopal Church, Haworth, New Jersey, Defendants-Appellants.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

Gregory D. Winter, Livingston, for defendant-appellant Reverend Alex MacDonell (Felzenberg, Winter & Winkler, attorneys).

David S. Rutherford, New York City, a member of the New York bar, for defendant-appellant Reverend Fletcher Harper (Renzulli, Gainey & Rutherford, attorneys).

Alan L. Zegas, West Orange, and Herbert D. Friedman, Boston, MA, a member of the Massachusetts bar, for plaintiff-respondent (Mr. Zegas, attorney; Mr. Friedman and Sharon J. Bittner, Hackensack, on the brief).

Martin F. McKernan, Jr., Camden, submitted briefs on behalf of amicus curiae New Jersey Catholic Conference (McKernan, McKernan &amp Godino, attorneys; Mr. McKernan and James J. Godino, Jr., on the briefs).

Douglas E. Arpert, West Paterson, and Sanford D. Brown, Freehold, joined in the briefs submitted by The New Jersey Catholic Conference on behalf of amici curiae Bishop Alfred Johnson, Northern New Jersey Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church and Southern New Jersey Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church (Evans Hand, West Paterson, and Cerrato, Dawes, Collins, Saker & Brown, Freehold, attorneys).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

POLLOCK, J.

This appeal presents two issues. The first issue is whether a parishioner's allegation of an inappropriate sexual relationship between a clergyman and the parishioner states a cause of action when the relationship occurs while the clergyman is providing pastoral counseling to the parishioner. Second, we must decide whether the parishioner may maintain a cause of action against another clergyman who allegedly publicized in a sermon and a letter the relationship with the first clergyman.

The Law Division dismissed all claims of the parishioner, F.G., against the first clergyman, the Reverend Alex MacDonell, as well as her claim against the second clergyman, the Reverend Fletcher Harper, for clergy malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty. The Appellate Division reversed and remanded the matter to the Law Division. 291 N.J.Super. 262, 677 A.2d 258 (1996). We granted leave to appeal to MacDonell and Harper. 146 N.J. 562, 683 A.2d 1159 (1996).

We conclude that F.G., may maintain a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against MacDonell, formerly the rector of All Saints Episcopal Church, Bergenfield, New Jersey (All Saints). MacDonell, who was married at the time of the events described in the complaint, is the clergyman who allegedly induced F.G. to engage in the inappropriate sexual relationship. F.G.'s cause of action against defendant Rev. Fletcher Harper is more problematic. Harper wrote a letter and delivered a sermon to the congregation about MacDonell's relationship with F.G. Whether F.G. may maintain her action against Harper depends on whether a court may adjudicate her claims without becoming entangled in church doctrine. If on remand the Law Division concludes it can avoid any such entanglement, then F.G. may maintain her cause of action against Harper for breach of fiduciary duty.

I.

Because the appeal arises on defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 4:6-2(e), we assume the truth of the allegations of the complaint, giving plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable factual inferences that those allegations support. See Independent Dairy Workers Union v. Milk Drivers Local 680, 23 N.J. 85, 89, 127 A.2d 869 (1956). If a generous reading of the allegations merely suggests a cause of action, the complaint will withstand the motion. Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elec. Corp., 116 N.J. 739, 746, 563 A.2d 31 (1989). So read, the record supports the following factual statement.

In 1992, MacDonell was the rector at both All Saints and an affiliated church, St. Luke's Episcopal Church, in Haworth. Harper was the assistant rector at both churches in 1993. In January 1994, following MacDonell's retirement, Harper succeeded MacDonell as rector. F.G. was a parishioner at All Saints in 1992-93.

From April 1992 until the end of 1993, F.G. consulted MacDonell for counseling. Aware that F.G. was vulnerable, MacDonell nonetheless induced her to engage in a sexual relationship with him. Although the complaint does not describe details of the relationship, it apparently did not involve sexual intercourse.

In Count I, F.G. seeks recovery for clergy malpractice. She alleges that MacDonell owed her "a special duty of care not to engage in unethical and harmful behavior towards [her]." The complaint continues that he "engaged in sexual behavior with [her] inappropriate to and in violation of [the special relationship]" he owed her, and that "he failed to exercise the degree of skill, care and diligence which is exercised by the average qualified pastoral counselor provider." In Count II, F.G. seeks recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Finally, in Count III, F.G. alleges that as her pastor, MacDonell owed her "a strict fiduciary duty to act in good faith and in her best interests and to refrain from conduct" that carried the risk of harm. F.G. asserts that MacDonell "breached his fiduciary duty by wrongfully and unlawfully exploiting F.G.'s trust and confidence by engaging in inappropriate sexual behavior with [her] and creating an unreasonable risk of mental and emotional harm to [her]."

The remaining counts allege claims against Harper. F.G. alleges that on March 31, 1994, she met with Harper to discuss MacDonell's "inappropriate physical conduct" with her and "the possibility of notifying the parishes of All Saints and St. Lukes" about that contact. Harper knew that she had been receiving in-patient care at a psychiatric hospital and that she had tried to commit suicide five days before the meeting.

In Count IV, F.G. alleges that Harper owed her a duty of care "not to publish any identifying information, including her identity and the nature and extent of defendant MacDonell's inappropriate sexual behavior with her, to the members of the parishes of [All Saints and St. Lukes]." On April 14, 1994, in breach of that duty and without F.G.'s consent, Harper published an open letter to the parishioners of the two churches. In his April 17 sermon at St. Luke's, Harper identified F.G. and described some details of MacDonell's inappropriate sexual behavior. Count IV concludes by alleging that Harper's conduct constituted a breach of F.G.'s privacy.

Count V alleges a claim in negligent misrepresentation asserting that Harper negligently represented that public disclosure of F.G.'s name was for her benefit and part of his pastoral care for her. He never informed her "that he intended to publish details concerning defendant MacDonell's inappropriate physical contact with her and never requested nor received F.G.'s consent to do same." Instead, the letter and sermon falsely suggested that she and MacDonell "were engaged in a voluntary romantic relationship between two consenting, mature adults rather than an abusive relationship between a pastoral care provider and pastoral counselor and a client." F.G. contends that Harper presented her relationship with MacDonell as a "romantic relationship" and erroneously suggested that she had tried to seduce MacDonell. In Counts VI, VII, and VIII the complaint respectively alleges claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and depiction in a false light. Finally, Count IX alleges that Harper breached a fiduciary duty owed to F.G.

The Law Division dismissed Counts I, II, III, and IX, which respectively allege negligent pastoral counseling, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and breach of fiduciary duty by MacDonell, as well as breach of fiduciary duty by Harper. The Appellate Division reversed and remanded the matter to the Law Division. The purpose of the remand was to permit F.G. to prove her claims against defendants for clergy malpractice and breach of their fiduciary duty.

We believe that a claim for breach of fiduciary duty provides the more appropriate form of relief than does clergy malpractice. An action for breach of a clergyman's fiduciary duty permits the parishioner to recover monetary damages without running the risk of entanglement with the free exercise of religion. Consequently, we modify the judgment of the Appellate Division by allowing F.G.'s claim for breach of fiduciary duty against MacDonell, and, subject to a hearing on entanglement with church doctrine, allowing a similar claim against Harper.

II.

The threshold issue is whether the First Amendment to the United States Constitution shields a member of the clergy from a claim for inappropriate sexual conduct with a parishioner who has consulted the clergy member for pastoral counseling. Defendants maintain that F.G.'s claims, whether characterized as for clergy malpractice or for breach of fiduciary duty, necessarily entangle the courts in the free exercise of religion. We disagree. The free exercise of religion does not permit members of the clergy to engage in inappropriate sexual conduct with parishioners who seek pastoral counseling.

The First Amendment prohibits any "law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." U.S. Const. amend. I. It, however, does not prohibit courts from any involvement in religious disputes. The amendment merely prohibits courts from determining underlying questions of religious doctrine and practice. Presbyterian Church in the United States v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440, 449, 89 S.Ct. 601, 606, 21 L.Ed.2d 658, 665 (1969).

A party challenging state action as violative of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
139 cases
  • Mabus v. St. James Episcopal Church, No. 2003-CA-00123-SCT
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 7 Octubre 2004
    ... ... Evans, 718 So.2d 286, 291 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1998) ) (opinion quashed in Doe v. Evans, 814 So.2d 370, 377 (Fla.2002) ; F.G. v. MacDonell, 150 N.J. 550, 696 A.2d 697 (1997) ; Moses v. Diocese of Colorado, 863 P.2d 310 (Colo.1993) ; Doe v. Hartz, 52 F.Supp.2d 1027, 1065 (N.D.Iowa ... ...
  • Doe v. Hartz
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • 5 Mayo 1999
    ... ... denied sub nom. Baucum v. Sanders, ___ U.S. ___, 119 S.Ct. 161, 142 L.Ed.2d 132 (1998); F.G. v. MacDonell, 150 N.J. 550, 696 A.2d 697, 702-04 (1997) (a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim based on sexual abuse of a parishioner by a priest, arising from a ... ...
  • Malicki v. Doe
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 14 Marzo 2002
    ...in fact `part of the belief and practices' of the religious group." Destefano, 763 P.2d at 283-84; see Sanders, 134 F.3d at 337-38; MacDonell, 696 A.2d at 702. Moreover, it has been asserted that a contrary holding actually places a church or its clergy in a preferred position of being immu......
  • Richelle L. v. Roman Catholic Archbishop
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 14 Febrero 2003
    ... ... Superior Court (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1556, 50 Cal. Rptr .2d 399), but by those elsewhere (see, e.g., F.G. v. MacDonell (1997) 150 N.J. 550, 562, 696 A.2d 697, 703; Schieffer v. Catholic Archdiocese of Omaha (1993) 244 Neb. 715, 720, 508 N.W.2d 907, 911; Strock v ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
5 books & journal articles
  • § 8.01 Personal Injury Claims
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Divorce, Separation and the Distribution of Property Title CHAPTER 8 Miscellaneous Property Interests
    • Invalid date
    ...Md. 642, 584 A.2d 69 (1991). Minnesota: Odenthal v. Seventh-Day Adventists, 649 N.W.2d 426 (Minn. 2002). New Jersey: F.G. v. MacDonell, 150 N.J. 550, 696 A.2d 697 (1997). Oregon: Spiess v. Johnson, 89 Ore. App. 289, 748 P.2d 1020 (1988). But see: Alabama: Bailey v. Faulkner, 940 So.2d 247 (......
  • The First Amendment: churches seeking sanctuary for the sins of the fathers.
    • United States
    • Fordham Urban Law Journal Vol. 31 No. 2, January 2004
    • 1 Enero 2004
    ...479 N.E.2d 113 (Mass. 1985); Mrozka v. Archdiocese of St. Paul & Minneapolis, 482 N.W.2d 806 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992); F.G.v. MacDonell, 696 A.2d 697 (N.J. 1997); Kenneth R. v. Roman Catholic Diocese, 654 N.Y.S.2d 791 (App. Div. 1997); Smith v. Privette, 495 S.E.2d 395 (N.C. Ct. App. 1998)......
  • Expertise and Discretion: New Jersey's Approach to Natural Resource Damages
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 50-1, January 2020
    • 1 Enero 2020
    ...2004), af’d as modiied sub nom . 183 N.J. 519 (N.J. 2005). 62. Restatement (Second) of Trusts §174 (1959); see also F.G. v. MacDonell, 150 N.J. 550, 564 (N.J. 1997); McKelvey v. Pierce, 173 N.J. 26, 57 (N.J. 2002). 63. Restatement (Second) of Trusts §174 (1959). 64. See Juliana v. United St......
  • Section 8.50 Concern Recognized by Sister Courts
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Insurance Practice 2015 Chapter 8 Liability Insurance for Professionals
    • Invalid date
    ...for breaches of what has been argued to be a fiduciary relationship between the counselor and the counseled. See F.G. v. MacDonell, 150 N.J. 550, 555–56 (N.J. 1997): Whether F.G. may maintain her action against Harper depends on whether a court may adjudicate her claims without becoming ent......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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