Opinion ID: 1933310
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Trial Court's Order Granting Partial Summary Judgment.

Text: In a written order entered on October 7, 1988, the trial judge granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants dismissing Count II of the complaint. In that count, the plaintiffs sought the return of the moneys they had contributed to the building fund, alleging that the defendants had abused the relationship of trust and confidence between minister and congregation and that the money had been procured through duress, coercion, and undue influence. The plaintiffs also prayed that they be awarded interest, punitive damages, and counsel fees. Treating this claim solely as one purporting to allege an independent tort, the judge held that it was subsumed in substantial part by the plaintiffs' claims of fraud and of intentional infliction of emotional distress. To the extent that it was not so subsumed, the judge concluded that insufficient facts were alleged to defeat the defendant's motion. The judge observed that in this jurisdiction, the tort of undue influence had been recognized only in the context of challenges to wills. Turning to the law of other jurisdictions, the judge stated that the claim has invariably included an element of a one-on-one relationship in which the donor was in a position of weakness, whereas in the present case all of the alleged solicitations took place in large groups, as part of an actual church service or at retreats or similar religious meetings. Apparently on account of the lack of such one-on-one contacts, the judge also ruled that the defendants were not fiduciaries when the contributions in question were solicited, even though they may be fiduciaries with respect to the disposition of money collected.... Finally, the trial judge wrote, the record on the motion for partial summary judgment demonstrates that plaintiffs cannot prove that they were unduly influenced in the sense required for recovery under that tort theory, because the plaintiffs had failed to allege that the defendants' activities actually influenced their decisions to contribute to the fund. [19] On appeal from an award of summary judgment, we review the record de novo. Williams v. Gerstenfeld, 514 A.2d 1172, 1175 (D.C.1986). We must examine the verified complaint, answers to interrogatories, depositions and affidavits, to determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact. District of Columbia v. Gray, 452 A.2d 962, 964 (D.C.1982). We construe these materials in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, resolving in that party's favor any doubt as to the existence of a factual dispute. Swann v. Waldman, 465 A.2d 844, 846 (D.C.1983).