![]() Father Doran stated, “This last year has witnessed a complete change in the behavior of Mr. On April 19, 1995, at Ferro's request, Father Doran wrote another letter addressed “To Whom It May Concern.” In that letter he was very critical of Patricia and commendatory of Ferro. ![]() In early 1995, Ferro asked Father Doran to withdraw the letter, but Father Doran refused to do so. In the letter, Father Doran stated that the English psychiatrist's “psychological opinion ․ judging complete stability in a case where the patient has exhibited no perseverance in any previous activity is beyond belief.” Ferro contended that Father Doran's criticism of the psychiatrist's opinion constituted an implied assertion that Ferro was mentally ill. He also sent copies of the letter to eighteen other people. On December 24, 1993, he sent them a strongly worded letter chastising them for their actions. Father Doran soon concluded that the difficulties between Ferro and Patricia were irreconcilable. The psychiatrist sent Father Doran a letter dated December 20, 1993, in which the psychiatrist stated that Ferro was not suffering from any mental illness. Ferro complied by being examined by a psychiatrist in the United Kingdom. One of the recommendations was that Ferro obtain a psychological evaluation. Legal proceedings to determine child custody and support were instituted some months later.Īfter meeting with Ferro and Patricia, Father Doran sent them a letter dated December 3, 1993, outlining five things they were to do in an attempt to resolve their difficulties. She had not disclosed her pregnancy during the divorce proceedings, and therefore the decree did not address the custody of the child. In June 1993, Patricia gave birth to their child. Ferro did not recognize the divorce and sought Father Doran's assistance in resolving their marital difficulties. While he was the parish priest, Father Doran engaged in conduct that ultimately led to this lawsuit.įerro's wife, Patricia, had obtained a default divorce in October 1992. Four years later he was removed and transferred to a seminary in Minnesota. On August 26, 1992, Father James Doran arrived at the Chapel to be the parish priest. SSPX is headquartered in Switzerland and is headed by a Superior General, but still professes filial devotion and loyalty to the Roman Catholic Pope. The Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) is a priestly society that was founded in 1969 by Roman Catholic Archbishop Marcel Lefebve, who believed that the Roman Catholic Church was not holding fast to its traditions, particularly with respect to how to celebrate the Holy Mass. The plaintiff-appellant Anthony Ferro (Ferro) was a parishioner at Immaculate Conception Chapel of the Society of Saint Pius X, Inc., (Chapel) located in Post Falls, Idaho. Because the plaintiff did not proceed with due diligence once he knew or reasonably should have known that the alleged misrepresentations supporting the equitable estoppel were untrue, we reverse the judgment. The statute of limitations had run before the lawsuit was filed, but the jury found that the defendants were equitably estopped from asserting it as a defense. This is an appeal from a judgment awarding a parishioner damages for the intentional infliction of emotional distress because of a priest's conduct. Paine Hamblen Coffin Brooke & Miller, Coeur d'Alene, for respondents. Decided: September 29, 2006Įvans Keane LLP, Boise, for appellant. Doran, individually, Defendant-Respondent-Cross Appellant. X., Inc., an Idaho corporation, Defendants-Respondents, Father James H. The SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X, a priestly society maintaining it headquarters in Switzerland, The Society of Saint Pius X, Kansas City, Missouri, Inc., a foreign corporation maintaining its headquarters in Kansas City, Missouri, Immaculate Conception Chapel of the Society of St. ![]() FERRO, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross Respondent, v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |