Case Name: Christopher V. FONTAINE v. The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF the ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW ORLEANS, et al.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1993-09-30
Citations: 625 So. 2d 548
Docket Number: No. 92-CA-2736
Parties: Christopher V. FONTAINE v. The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF the ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW ORLEANS, et al.
Judges: Before WARD, PLOTKIN and WALTZER, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 625
Pages: 548–565

Head Matter:
Christopher V. FONTAINE v. The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF the ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW ORLEANS, et al.
No. 92-CA-2736.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
Sept. 30, 1993.
David R. Paddison, Covington, Darryl J. Tschirn, Metairie, and Mack E. Barham, Robert E. Arceneaux, Gail N. Wise, Barham & Arceneaux, New Orleans, for plaintiff/appellant.
• Don M. Richard, Denechaud & Denechaud, New Orleans, for The Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of New Orleans and The Congregation of St. Rita Roman Catholic Church.
Gregg L. Sypridon, Lawrence J. Centola, Jr., Hoffman, Sutterfield, Ensenat & Bank-ston, New Orleans, for Intern. Ins. Co.
C. Wm. Bradley, Jr., Dwight C. Paulsen, III, Lemle & Kelleher, New Orleans, for U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co.
Lindsay A. Larson, III, O’Neill, Eichen, Miller & Breckinridge, New Orleans, for Twin City Fire Ins. Co.
Arthur A. Lemann, III, and Edwin Stoutz, Jr., New Orleans, for Dino Cinel.
Before WARD, PLOTKIN and WALTZER, JJ.

Opinion:
PLOTKIN, Judge.
Plaintiff Christopher V. Fontaine appeals two trial court judgments. First, he seeks reversal of a September 1, 1992 judgment granting an exception of prescription on his claims for sexual abuse and clergy malpractice against defendants Dino Cinel, St. Rita's Church of New Orleans, the Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of New Orleans, Twin City Fire Insurance Company, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, and International Insurance Company. Second, he seeks reversal of a September 18, 1992 judgment granting a motion for summary judgment, dismissing from the suit defendants the Roman Catholic Church, Twin City Fire Insurance, United States Fidelity, and International Insurance. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the trial court judgment granting the exception of prescription on the sexual abuse and clergy malpractice claims, but partially reverse the judgment granting the motion for summary judgment in favor of the church defendants.
Facts
Fontaine's suit is based on occurrences growing out of his relationship with defendant Cinel, a former Catholic priest, which relationship allegedly began in February of 1982, when Fontaine was 17 years old, and continued until late 1985 or early 1986. In his original petition, Fontaine claims that during that period Cinel "performed illicit acts upon the petitioner" which "caused petitioner to suffer severe physical and mental damage," damage which was "worsened" because it continued for a prolonged period of time. Additionally, Fontaine claims that he was defamed and that his privacy was invaded when Cinel marketed videotapes and photographs of him for publication.
During the relevant time period, Cinel served as a priest at St. Rita Church, which is under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of New Orleans. Fontaine named both the church and the archdiocese defendants in his suit, claiming, among other things, that the church defendants provided Cinel with the "instrumentalities to conduct said illicit activity" and that the church defendants knew or should have known of the activities and taken "appropriate measures" to correct the situation. In his fifth supplemental and amended petition, Fontaine also claims that the archdiocese is liable for clergy malpractice for its negligence in "screening, hiring, training and supervising]" Cinel. Various insurance companies were also named as defendants.
Fontaine's suit was filed on November 80, 1989; it has been construed to allege three separate causes of action — (1) sexual abuse, (2) clergy malpractice, and (3) invasion of privacy. Because Cinel's relationship with Fontaine terminated in late 1985 or early 1986, the defendants filed exceptions of prescription, which were granted as to all defendants on both the sexual abuse and clergy malpractice claims. The trial court found that the invasion of privacy claim was not prescribed because Fontaine only discovered that cause of action when he saw a Dutch magazine devoted entirely to photographs of him in August of 1989, within one year of the date the suit was filed.
Since the granting of the exception of prescription left only the invasion of privacy claim, the church defendants and their insurers then filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that Cinel's decision to submit the photographs for publication was completely divorced from any relationship Cinel had with the church. Finding that none of Fontaine's claims against the church defendants had merit after the defeat of the sexual abuse and clergy malpractice claims, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment, dismissing the church defendants from the suit. Fontaine's only remaining claim is the cause of action for invasion of privacy against Cinel individually.
1. Exception of Prescription
Generally, Louisiana jurisprudence requires that courts strictly construe prescriptive statutes against finding that the case has prescribed and in favor of maintaining the cause of action. Bustamento v. Tucker, 607 So.2d 532, 537 (La.1992). Therefore, when a case is subject to two possible constructions, the court should adopt that construction which favors maintaining, rather than barring, the action. Id. See also Lima v. Schmidt, 595 So.2d 624, 629 (La.1992) (collecting cases).
In brief, Fontaine asserts four arguments for reversal of the exception of prescription: (1) that his claim is quasi-contractual and thus subject to a ten-year prescriptive period; (2) that his claim is not prescribed because he did not "discover" the abuse and malpractice until less than one year prior to the filing of suit; (3) that contra non valen-tem non currit praescriptio should apply to suspend prescription; and (4) that the judgment must be reversed because the granting of the exception violated established procedural requirements. Even in light of'the above principles, we find no merit in any of Fontaine's arguments, for the reasons discussed below.
a. Quasi-contract
First, Fontaine argues that his claim for sexual abuse had not prescribed when he filed suit on November 30,1989, even though his relationship with Cinel ended in late 1985 or early 1986, because his claim is actually based on a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty sounding in quasi-contract, not tort, and thus is subject to a ten-year prescriptive period under La.C.C. art. 3499, rather than the one-year prescriptive period applicable to torts.
Fontaine's argument on this issue, which is apparently raised for the first time on appeal, is somewhat resourceful. He claims that at some point during his relationship with Cinel, Fontaine was brought before a Jefferson Parish judge for sentencing on a simple burglary charge. At that point, Fon-taine says, Cinel intervened in the proceedings, convincing the judge to place Fontaine on probation and making one of the conditions of that probation that Fontaine perform community service at St. Rita's Catholic Church. Fontaine maintains that Cinel's actions resulted in a quasi-contractual relation ship between Cinel and the authorities; Fon-taine claims that he was the intended beneficiary of that contractual relationship. Additionally, Fontaine argues that the contract resulted in a fiduciary relationship, which Cinel breached, entitling him to recovery for the damages caused by that alleged breach.
Although Fontaine's argument is resourceful, it is insufficient to overcome the exception of prescription because Fontaine failed to make any reference either to a cause of action in quasi-contract or to the facts which he claims resulted in the quasi-contract in either his original petition or any of his five supplemental and amending petitions. Under the jurisprudence of this state, the prescriptive period applicable to a case is determined by "the character of [the] action disclosed in the pleadings." Starns v. Emmons, 538 So.2d 275, 277 (La.1989). Since Fontaine's pleadings, even if construed liberally, fail to raise any issues which might be interpreted to sound a claim in quasi-contract, the trial court properly granted the exception of prescription.
In brief, Fontaine seeks to avoid this result by citing Roberson v. Provident House, 576 So.2d 992 (La.1991), for the proposition that "a Louisiana plaintiff is entitled to recover under any theory supported by the facts regardless of whether that specific legal theory is pled and even if not recognized until on appeal." However, even a superficial reading of Roberson reveals the error of Fontaine's interpretation. The principles stated in that case apply to situations where the pleadings have been enlarged to include new theories of the case by evidence admitted at trial without objection, not to cases involving exceptions of prescription.
b. Discovery rule
Generally, the "discovery rule" provides that prescription does not run against a plaintiff unless he "knew or reasonably should have known that he or she has suffered harm due to a tortious act of the defendant." Harvey v. Dixie Graphics, Inc., 593 So.2d 351, 354 (La.1992). Fontaine claims that his sexual abuse claim against Cinel had not prescribed under this rule on November 30,1989, because Fontaine did not become aware that Cinel's "entire course of conduct," specifically the "continuous, cumulative, and synergistic nature" of the conduct, constituted "sexual abuse" until he saw the photographs of himself published in a Dutch magazine in August of 1989. Fontaine says that "[o]nly the shock of the pictures sold for public consumption made Fontaine realize his betrayal at the hands of Cinel."
Fontaine cites the recent Louisiana Supreme Court case of Bustamento, 607 So.2d 532, in support of this argument. In Bus-tamento, the court found the defendant coworker's actions in repeatedly subjecting the plaintiff to sexual harassment in the workplace constituted a "continuous tort," which did not prescribe until one year after the last act of sexual harassment occurred. In reaching that conclusion, the court distinguished between a "continuous tort," which occurs when "the cumulation of acts and conduct, and the resulting cumulation of damages, . transforms the individual incidents . into an actionable tort," and, what we will call a "non-continuous tort," which occurs when "separate and distinct acts, each of which [give] rise to immediately apparent damages, result[ ] in the accrual of a separate cause of action when they occurred." Id. at 540.
We find this distinction helpful in assessing the claims of the plaintiff in this case. Certainly, the "sexual abuse" suffered by Fon-taine resulted in immediately apparent damages at the time it occurred between February of 1982 and late 1985 or early 1986. Fontaine's damages allegedly suffered as a result of the sexual abuse itself were not dependent on "the cumulation of events," including the discovery of the pictures, to transform it into an actionable tort. Thus, this ease is readily distinguishable from Bus-tamento on that issue.
Additionally, Fontaine's argument that he was unaware that he had suffered sexual abuse until he saw the pictures in the Dutch magazine defies logic. Fontaine would have this court believe that he only became aware of the sexual abuse when he discovered that Cinel had further "betrayed" him by selling the photographs. However, we can see no connection between the two events which would justify an extension of the prescriptive period on the sexual abuse claim. Therefore, we reject Fontaine's argument on this issue.
c. Contra non valentum
Contra non valentem agere mulla currit praescripto, which means "prescription does not run against a party unable to act," is a judicially-created exception to the occasionally harsh prescription rules. Rajnowski v. St. Patrick's Hospital, 564 So.2d 671, 674 (La.1990). Generally, it provides that prescription should be extended under the following circumstances:
1. Where there was some legal cause which prevented the courts or their officers from taking cognizance of or acting on the plaintiffs action;
2. Where there was some condition coupled with a contract or connected with the proceedings which prevented the creditor from suing or acting;
3. Where the debtor himself has done some act effectually to prevent the creditor from availing himself of his cause of action; and
4. Where the cause of action is not known or reasonably knowable by the plaintiff, even though his ignorance is not induced by the defendant.
Id.
In the instant case, Fontaine argues that the third and fourth categories of contra non valentem should have been applied to this case. The major thrust of Fontaine's argument is that Cinel exerted such control over him that he "was prevented . from availing himself of his cause of action." That alleged "control" resulted, Fontaine says, from a combination of Cinel's role as a Catholic priest, Fontaine's indoctrination concerning the regard to be afforded priests, and Cinel's intervention into Fontaine's criminal case. The fact that he was under Cinel's control, coupled with the "fact" of his mental retardation, which he specifically alleged in his fourth supplemental and amending petition, made him "unable to act," Fontaine claims.
In support of this argument, Fontaine cites a recent decision construing contra non va-lentem in a sexual abuse ease, Held v. State Farm Insurance Co., 610 So.2d 1017 (La. App. 1st Cir.1992), writs denied 613 So.2d 975 (La.1993). In Held, the court applied the doctrine to suspend prescription against a 21-year-old daughter who filed suit against her father for sexual molestation during her minority. The court found that the daughter's post-traumatic stress syndrome, coupled with her parents' refusal to pay for her therapy and college expenses, rendered her "unable to act" for purposes of the doctrine.
The Held case is inapposite here for one primary reason — the plaintiff in this case does not even allege that Cinel took any action to prevent him from filing suit once their relationship terminated in late 1985 or early 1986. Fontaine makes no allegations of financial or even psychological control after that time. Additionally, the plaintiff in this case does not claim to be suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome. The only real common denominator between this case and the Held case is Fontaine's claim that he was unable to properly assess responsibility for the relationship until just prior to filing suit. This allegation is insufficient to invoke the doctrine of contra non valentem.
d. Procedural violations
Fontaine's final argument on the prescription issue is that the trial court improperly granted the exception because the defendants allegedly failed to carry their burden of proving that the claim had prescribed through the introduction of legally-competent evidence. Fontaine claims that the decision granting the exception of prescription was not subject to an evidentiary hearing, but was based on the consideration of materials attached to memorandums, which were not properly admitted into the record. Fontaine admits that no objection to consideration of the evidence was made at the trial court level.
The dissenting judge accepts this argument and votes to reverse and remand the entire case on the basis of the finding that no hearing on the prescription issue was conducted by the trial judge. The dissenting judge would also reverse the granting of the motion for summary judgment on the same basis, although the appellant did not make that argument in brief. However, we refuse to reverse the judgment on the basis of Fontaine's procedural argument for the reasons discussed below.
First, the burden of proving that a petition has prescribed generally falls on the party bringing the exception, unless the petition is prescribed on its face, in which case the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the petition has not prescribed. Martin v. Mid-South Tank Utilities Co., 614 So.2d 319, 321 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied 616 So.2d 707 (La.1993). In this case, the plaintiff failed to list any dates for any of the alleged occurrences in the petition; however, the documents which the church defendants attach to their exception prove the relevant dates. Additionally, Fontaine did not object to the consideration of those documents at the trial court level and does not controvert the fact that his relationship with Cinel began in February of 1982 and terminated in late 1985 or early 1986, much more than one year prior to the date he filed his suit on November 30, 1989. Thus, under the uncon-troverted evidence, the petition had in fact prescribed on its face. Even in this court, Fontaine failed to present any evidence to rebut that conclusion, but instead relies on a technical argument which he failed to make at the trial court level.
Second, the record in this case reveals that the trial court did hold a hearing on the exception, allowing the attorneys for all parties to argue their positions. Although the hearing was not transcribed and the evidence necessary to prove the exception was not formally "filed into evidence with the clerk at the time of hearing," as the dissent would require, the evidence is in the record because it was attached to the exception. That evidence is sufficient to allow the trial court to rule on the exception of prescription, and is also sufficient to allow this court to review the trial court's decision on that issue. This is especially true in light of the fact that all the crucial evidence is attached to the exception and that evidence reveals that no factual dispute exists between the parties to the action.
Third, this court has previously refused to strictly require that the trial court even hold an evidentiary hearing on an exception of prescription. See Martin, 614 So.2d 319. Given the fact that the trial court is not even required to hold a hearing of any kind under the applicable jurisprudence from this circuit, certainly the hearing allowing the parties to argue held in this ease was sufficient.
Finally, under the circumstances presented by this case, where this court is convinced that the claims for sexual abuse and clergy malpractice are indeed prescribed, reversing the judgment on a procedural technicality, as advocated by the dissent, would defy judicial economy and logic. Sending the case back for the rote formal introduction of evidence which is in the record available for review would be a pointless exercise, resulting in the waste of valuable time.
For those reasons, we decline to reverse the judgment on the basis of Fontaine's procedural argument.
Since we find no merit in any of Fontaine's arguments for reversing the trial court judgment granting the exception of prescription on the sexual abuse and clergy malpractice claims, that judgment is affirmed.
2. Motion for summary judgment
When reviewing a trial court decision granting a motion for summary judgment, appellate courts consider the evidence de novo, using the same criteria applied by trial courts to determine whether summary judgment is appropriate. Schroeder v. Board of Supervisors, 591 So.2d 342, 345 (La.1991). That is, the appellate court must determine whether "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." La.C.C.P. art. 966(B). Thus, a motion for summary judgment may be granted only when the mover has proven both of the following elements: (1) no genuine issues of material fact exist, and (2) the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Chaisson v. Domingue, 372 So.2d 1225, 1227 (La.1979); Transworld Drilling v. Texas General Petroleum Co., 524 So.2d 215, 217 (La.App. 4th Cir.1988). All evidence and inferences drawn from the evidence must be construed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion; all allegations of the party opposing the motion must be taken as true and all doubt must be resolved in his favor. Schroeder, 591 So.2d at 345.
Fontaine makes three arguments for reversal of the trial court judgment granting the motion for summary judgment: (1) that Cinel's invasion of his privacy involved more than the simple act of distributing the pictures for publication and encompasses activities for which the church defendants could have some vicarious liability, (2) that the church "ratified" Cinel's wrongful activities, and (3) that the church defendants are independently liable for their negligent "screening, hiring, training, and supervising]" of Cinel.
Since we have affirmed the trial court judgment granting the exception of prescription on the sexual abuse and clergy malpractice claims, the only issue to be considered in deciding whether the trial court properly granted the motion for summary judgment is whether any of Fontaine's arguments presents a genuine issue of material fact concerning the church defendants' possible liability for Cinel's invasion of Fontaine's privacy. The trial court decision granting the motion was obviously based on a finding that the only action taken by Cinel which invaded Fontaine's privacy was the act of distributing the photographs for publication, an activity which the trial court found completely divorced from Cinel's relationship to the church defendants. However, we find that Fontaine's first argument on this issue raises a genuine issue of material fact concerning the liability of the church defendants.
Fontaine claims that the invasion of his privacy involved more than the single act of distributing the photographs for publication, and that his privacy was invaded long before the photographs were distributed, by Cinel's actions in inducing him to pose for the photographs. Once again, Fontaine invokes a "continuing tort" principle, claiming that Ci-nel's distribution of the photographs was simply the last action in a series of occurrences which resulted in Fontaine's damages. Since the trial court found that the invasion of privacy claim was viable because Fontaine was unaware of his damages until less than a year before he filed suit, Cinel would be liable for all of the actions which, when cu-mulated together, resulted in the invasion of privacy.
When considered in the light most favorable to Fontaine, who is the party opposing the motion for summary judgment, the above allegations are sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact concerning the liability of the church defendants for Cinel's activities. Fontaine claims that the church defendants either knew or should have known of many of the activities performed by Cinel between February of 1982 and late 1985 or early 1986. Many of those exact activities, Fontaine alleges, ultimately resulted in damage to him because of the invasion of his privacy. Under this theory of the case, the church defendants could be liable, either vicariously or independently.
For the above stated reasons, the judgment granting the motion for summary judgment in favor of the church defendants and dismissing those defendants from the case is reversed.
Accordingly, the trial court judgment granting the exception of prescription is affirmed, and the trial court judgment granting the motion for summary judgment is reversed. The case is remanded for further proceedings.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.
. The parties to this appeal have filed various motions and cross-motions to strike in this court. Those motions are granted insofar as they relate to matters not properly in the trial court record. In deciding this appeal, we have considered only the record evidence.