Mr. Koven's analysis is plausible. But....Which court determines whether a fraud was perpetrated? Is it the bankruptcy court? And the standard of good moral character is supplied by cannon law? State law? Common law fiduciary responsibilities? Marc Stern
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vance R. Koven Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 12:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FW: Interesting question: Portland Archdiocese Filing Chapter 11 At 11:47 AM 7/8/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >So, help me understand the application of fraud law to the diocesan ... >paedophile priest scandal. 1. Diocese knowingly conceals (and thereby misrepresents) priest's predilection to pedophilia from parishes and parishioners (which we've agreed by hypothesis, though of course the scienter part has to be proven case by case). 2. Parishes and parishioners rely on the priest's good moral character as the basis on which he is allowed to interact unsupervised with minors (a reasonable assumption, though this may need proof as well). 3. Priest is not as represented, owing to the concealed character defect. 4. As a result of the inherent and undisclosed defect in the priest, the priest sexually assaults minor parishioners. 5. Parishioners, at the least, suffer medical and emotional damage whose extent can be quantified for purposes of computing an award (they may also suffer other forms of economic injury, such as church school tuition and contributions paid). Parishes, if not included within the diocese's bankruptcy petition, may suffer damages for the vicarious liability they have for the priest. Where I think Jim is not getting the connection is in thinking that the damages for fraud must be a decrease in the market value of an asset, or the failure in performance of a contract, rather than the full panoply of direct losses a plaintiff can suffer as a result of [the absence of] the concealed fact. While it is more direct to state a claim based solely on the tortious acts of the priest and hold the diocese responsible based on respondeat superior and a variety of other direct and vicarious liability theories, the fraud theory could hold up, too. If it does, then the diocese might find an undischargeable debt on its hands. Vance R. Koven Boston, Massachusetts USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
