In Dux v. Bugarin, (MI App., Dec. 21, 2021), a Michigan state appellate court dismissed an intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claim and a fraud claim growing out of the Archdiocese of Detroit's removal of an accused Catholic priest supported by plaintiffs. The court describes plaintiffs' claims:
In their IIED count, plaintiffs claimed defendants’ statement that the allegations of sexual abuse were credible was an “extreme and outrageous act.” In their fraud count, plaintiffs alleged the Archdiocese asked its parishioners, including plaintiffs, to donate money to the Catholic Services Appeal (CSA). Plaintiffs alleged the Archdiocese represented the donations would be used for church ministry and would not be used to settle claims “of any nature” against the Archdiocese.
Dismissing the IIED claim under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, the court said in part:
The trial court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ IIED claim because resolution of that claim would require the trial court to delve into matters of ecclesiastical policy concerning how the Archdiocese investigates and evaluates claims of sexual abuse made against its clergy.... [A]ny inquiry into the means and methods by which the Archdiocese evaluates such claims would require the trial court to inquire into ecclesiastical matters forbidden under the First Amendment.
Dismissing plaintiffs' fraud claims, the court said that one of the fraud claims-- that they were defrauded by the statement that donations would be used for the church "ministry"-- would require courts to impermissibly inquire into internal church matters. It would need to decide whether "ministry" includes investigation into sex abuse claims and providing treatment for victims. Turning to a second fraud claim, the court said in part:
Turning then to whether plaintiffs otherwise stated a claim for fraud on the basis of the statement that CSA donations would not be used to settle claims against the Archdiocese, plaintiffs’ claim is premised on the theory that the Archdiocese had a duty to disclose the information about the true purpose of the donations.
“Michigan courts have recognized that silence cannot constitute actionable fraud unless it occurred under circumstances where there was a legal duty of disclosure.”
