Petrell v. Rakoczy
| Decision Date | 11 April 2005 |
| Docket Number | CA012849F |
| Citation | 2005 MBAR 261 |
| Parties | Carolyn Petrell v. August A. Rakoczy et al. |
| Court | Massachusetts Superior Court |
Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh): Muse, Christopher, A.J.
This matter came before the court on Defendants, The Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, M. Thomas Shaw, Barbara C. Harris and Roy F. Cederholm's ("the diocesan defendants") motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff Carolyn Petrell ("Petrell"), claims that the defendant, August A. Rakoczy ("Rakoczy") took advantage of her, by engaging in an impermissible relationship with her, while Rakoczy was serving as rector of the Christ Church Parish of Plymouth, Inc. ("Christ Church"). Petrell has brought several claims against the diocesan defendants and, as further described, she alleges that she suffered damages including but not limited to, a divorce from her husband, loss of custody of her children, and emotional distress.
Rakoczy was a duly ordained priest of the Episcopal faith who at some point came to serve as rector of the defendant, Christ Church. The three bishops, at various times, served as bishops of the Diocese of Massachusetts. The diocese is structured as follows.
The Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts ("Diocese") is organized subject to M.G.L.c. 180 as a charitable organization. Each diocese is presided over by one Bishop who serves in the capacity as head administrator. Defendant, Thomas Shaw ("Shaw") has been the Diocesan Bishop since 1995. Second in line is the Bishop Suffragan. The Defendant, Barbara C. Harris, ("Harris") served as Bishop Suffragan from 1989-2000. After she retired, the Defendant, Roy F. Cederholm ("Cederholm") has served as Bishop Suffragan from March 2001 to the present. Each diocese is part of a hierarchical church structure under the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America ("PECUSA"). The various dioceses adhere to the doctrines and disciplines established by PECUSA. They are also bound by its national constitutions and canons. However, each diocese also has its own constitution and canons that govern that diocese itself.
Within the diocese are mission churches that the diocese operates. Further down the hierarchical structure, are independent parishes located in different regions of the state wherein each diocese sits. Each parish is a separate corporate entity and is governed by a vestry made up of laypeople from that parish. Thus, each diocese is made up of parishes in its geographical area, and each parish is then considered a separate entity from the diocese. The Diocese Bishop is mainly responsible for ensuring that each parish conducts its affairs according to the canons and constitution of the national diocese.
Christ Church is organized as a corporate entity in Plymouth, Massachusetts. Bradford Burgess ("Burgess") serves as the senior Warden of Christ Church. The vestry of Christ Church is responsible for electing representatives who will ultimately manage the parish affairs. The vestry and representatives are not diocesan employees. In relation to the diocese, the parishes owe ecclesiastical and spiritual allegiance to the bishop, diocese, and PECUSA. Therefore, as its own entity, it is up to the vestry to hire a priest to serve as its parish rector, not the diocese. In late 1996, Christ Church began to search for a new parish rector and Rackoczy was one of several candidates.
At the time Christ Church was searching for a new rector, Rackoczy was a priest in Pennsylvania. Through the hiring process, Christ Church had interviewed Rackoczy in person and over the phone. Coming to Christ Church from a parish located in another state, Rackoczy had to transfer his canonical residence from the Pittsburgh Diocese to the Massachusetts Diocese. The canonical procedures for accomplishing this transfer include certain criteria to establish that the priest is in good standing. The diocese has a procedure to evaluate a priest's standing. A new diocese will not accept a priest until it receives of a "letter dimissory" from the transferring diocese. In this case, the Massachusetts Diocese received such a letter from the Pittsburgh Diocese affirming that Rackoczy was a priest in good standing. Further, upon transfer, a background check is then completed. For some time the Oxford Document Management Company was employed by the diocese to send out detailed questionnaires to all prior employers, schools and diocese that have had worked with the priest. This was done during Rakoczy's transfer to Massachusetts.
The record indicates that there was no evidence showing that any of the questionnaire responses suggested that Rakoczy engaged in any inappropriate sexual conduct in his past. Further, the diocese of Pittsburgh also did not know of any information of that nature concerning Rakoczy. Rakoczy himself offered the only significant information, obtained by the Massachusetts Diocese, when he admitted that he had an altercation with a person who was stalking him. In addition, Bishop Shaw learned from Bishop Rowley of the Northwest Pennsylvania Diocese, that Rakoczy had a breakdown during or in the aftermath of his divorce sometime in the 1990s, but had since recovered. None of the information given about Rakoczy's background related to sexual misconduct in any way. Further, the diocese requires that priests enter sexual misconduct awareness training or show proof of such training elsewhere before they begin employment. After Christ Church hired Rakoczy, Bishop Harris met with him to speak about the goals and mission of the church, as this is a diocese tradition. Rakoczy began his position as rector of Christ Church in April 1997.
The eleven-month relationship between the Plaintiff and Rakoczy lasted from May 2000 to April 2001. On May 10, 2000, Plaintiff, Carolyn V. Petrell ("Petrell"), went to Rakoczy to speak with him out of concern for her sister-in-law's daughter whom she suspected had a drug problem. During this meeting, Rakoczy indicated that he could "easily fall in love" with Petrell. Petrell then started meeting Rakoczy on a regular basis, beginning the next day, to seek guidance regarding her marital problems. On May 21, 2000, Petrell left her marital home after Mr. Petrell had been arrested. On June 4, 2000, Petrell and Rakoczy had their first sexual encounter. A few days later, on June 7, 2000, Rakoczy met with Petrell's husband and explained to her husband that the marriage was broken and that he should join another church.
Petrell retained legal counsel for divorce on June 9, 2000, and then filed a formal complaint for divorce on June 26, 2000. Petrell and Rakoczy spent time with each other's children and family members. Petrell's eight-year-old daughter wrote a seven-page letter to her father on August 13, 2000, revealing Petrell and Rakoczy's relationship. By January 2001, Petrell's divorce was final. However, on April 17, 2001, Petrell informed Rakoczy that their relationship was over because she was planning to reconcile with her husband. Petrell later explained that this decision was also made because the relationship with Rakoczy became abnormal as it progressed and she discovered new information about him, causing her to suspect he had homosexual tendencies and an infatuation with pornography.
Episcopalian Priests are relatively free to have personal relations. However, they may not engage in such relationships with parishioners, as this is in violation of ecclesiastical rules. An anonymous parishioner told Betsy Bishop that she/he suspected Rakoczy was having an inappropriate relationship with another parishioner. Betsy Bishop relayed this information to Shaw. Shaw declined to investigate the matter, as it was based on hearsay.
After Petrell ended the relationship, Rakoczy reacted poorly, and was hospitalized. A Christ Church official informed the diocese of his hospitalization. At this time, the diocese had become aware of the relationship and began its discipline of Rakoczy. Cederholm advised Rakoczy of the process involved in bringing ecclesiastical proceedings against him. Rakoczy chose to renounce his vows instead of contesting the charges. In an effort to inform the parishioners that Rakoczy would no longer be serving as their Rector, Cederholm personally explained to them that the situation involved an inappropriate relationship by Rakoczy without identifying Petrell.
Petrell has brought several claims against the diocese. Petrell alleges that Shaw was negligent in the hiring and retention of Rakoczy and that in doing so, he breached a fiduciary duty. Further, Petrell asserts that Harris and Cederholm were also involved in negligent hiring, supervision, and retention practices, and breach of a fiduciary duty. Petrell asserts that the Episcopal Diocese is vicariously liable, further alleging that it ratified Rakoczy's acts, which were outside the scope of his employment in addition to negligent hiring, retention and supervision. Moreover, Petrell asserts that Cederholm placed her in a false light by announcing her relationship to the parish.
In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the facts must be viewed "in the light most favorable to.á.á. the nonmoving party, taking all the facts set forth in its supporting affidavits as true." G.S. Enterprises, Inc v. Falmouth Marine. Inc., 410 Mass. 262,...
To continue reading
Request your trial