Bruss v. Przybylo

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 2nd District Appellate » 2008 » Bruss v. Przybylo

Bruss v. Przybylo

State: Illinois

Court: 2nd District Appellate

Docket No: 2-06-0884 Rel

Case Date: 09/26/2008

Preview:No. 2--06--0884 Filed: 9-26-08 ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ WILLIAM BRUSS and MARIANNE BRUSS, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Du Page County. Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) ) v. ) No. 06--MR--547 ) CHESTER JOHN PRZYBYLO, JOHN ) SUICH, BEVERLY SUICH, JOE VALDEZ, ) CARL SCHAEFFER, BILL KLASKE, ) DANIEL MORENO, and DELORES ) DOOLEY, ) Honorable ) Edward R. Duncan, Jr., Defendants-Appellees. ) Judge, Presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE O'MALLEY delivered the opinion of the court: Plaintiffs, William and Marianne Bruss, appeal the order of the circuit court of Du Page County dismissing with prejudice their complaint pursuant to two separate motions to dismiss brought by defendants, Father Chester John Przybylo, John Suich, Beverly Suich, Joe Valdez, Carl Schaeffer, Bill Klaske, Daniel Moreno, and Delores Dooley, under sections 2--615 and 2--619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2--615, 2--619 (West 2006)). Plaintiffs contend that the court erred in dismissing their complaint, because they stated property claims not subject to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine (see Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the United States of America & Canada v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 49 L. Ed. 2d 151, 96 S. Ct. 2372 (1976)

No. 2--06--0884 (explaining the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine)). Plaintiffs also contend that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice. We affirm. On April 18, 2006, plaintiffs filed a three-count complaint for declaratory and other relief against defendants. The following facts (taken as true for purposes of our review at this stage in the proceedings (see Abrams v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc., 306 Ill. App. 3d 1006, 1011 (1999)) are drawn from plaintiffs' complaint. Defendants are the pastor (Father Przybylo) and members of the board of directors (the remaining defendants) of The Shrine of Christ the King (Shrine), a church located in Winfield, Illinois, in the diocese of Joliet. The Shrine was established "to promote, preserve and extend the use of the Tridentine Latin Mass of the Roman Catholic Church, according to the 1962 or earlier missal and to foster the accompanying knowledge and practices, doctrines, rights and customs at that time of the Roman Catholic Church, and to establish and maintain an independent shrine to accomplish these objectives." We infer from the record that the Shrine, while practicing Roman Catholic rites, is an independent congregation and not part of the Roman Catholic Church. Further, the Shrine was constituted as an Illinois not-forprofit corporation and not as a religious corporation. Plaintiffs attached to their complaint an unsigned copy of the constitution and bylaws of the Shrine. Plaintiffs alleged that they were members of the Shrine and had been members of the Shrine's board of directors for many years. Plaintiffs alleged that the individual defendants (except Father Przybylo) held themselves out as members of the Shrine and members of the Shrine's board of directors. Plaintiffs alleged that Father Przybylo purports to be an ordained Roman Catholic priest who, beginning in 1996, has been employed by the Shrine as its pastor and as a Roman Catholic priest. Plaintiffs attached to the complaint a copy of the employment contract between Father

-2-

No. 2--06--0884 Przybylo and the Shrine. The recitals in the employment contract provided that Father Przybylo was seeking and the Shrine was offering employment as a Roman Catholic priest and pastor. The employment contract authorized Father Przybylo to provide daily mass, including Sundays and other holy days of obligation, and to perform the usual and customary priestly duties for the congregation. Plaintiffs alleged that Father Przybylo was not a member of any Roman Catholic diocese or religious order recognized by the Roman Catholic Church. They further alleged that Father Przybylo did not possess faculties1 from the Roman Catholic Church, and specifically from the Bishop of the Diocese of Joliet, to practice the rites the Shrine expected and employed him to practice. Plaintiffs alleged that Father Przybylo was named as a defendant in a civil action in Cook County, and they attached a copy of the Cook County complaint as an exhibit. The Cook County complaint alleged that Father Przybylo had sexually molested an anonymous minor, the plaintiff in the Cook County action. In count I of their complaint, plaintiffs sought to maintain a derivative action on behalf of the Shrine, notwithstanding the fact that the Shrine was not a named party, either plaintiff or defendant, to the action. In count I, plaintiffs sought the termination or rescission of the employment agreement between Father Przybylo and the Shrine. The thrust of count I is that Father Przybylo never possessed the qualifications or ability to fulfill the terms of the employment agreement. Plaintiffs sought the disgorgement of all compensation and benefits received by Father Przybylo in addition to his termination.

1

Faculties, a term of historical ecclesiastical law, is defined as "[a]n authorization granted to

a person to do what otherwise would not be allowed." Black's Law Dictionary 613 (7th ed. 1999). -3-

No. 2--06--0884 In count II of their complaint, plaintiffs sought a declaration that the January 2006 election of the Shrine's board of directors was invalid. The thrust of count II appears to be that Father Przybylo improperly influenced, manipulated, and controlled access to voting membership among the persons of the congregation for the purpose of ultimately influencing and controlling who would be elected to the board of directors of the Shrine. In particular, plaintiffs alleged that the 2006 election of members of the board of directors of the Shrine was invalid because too many of the voters were not qualified to be voting members of the Shrine under the Shrine's constitution and bylaws. Plaintiffs alleged that, as a result of the improper 2006 election, the board of directors of the Shrine is neither properly constituted nor elected. Plaintiffs sought the following relief: (1) a review of the membership rolls of the Shrine culminating in a determination of the qualifications of the voting members of the Shrine; (2) a declaration that the January 2006 and subsequent elections are invalid; (3) the appointment of a temporary receiver to oversee and secure the Shrine's assets until valid elections can be held properly; (4) the holding of a proper election allowing the participation of all individuals who would have qualified to vote in an election in 1995 or any time thereafter; and (5) the removal of Father Przybylo from the board of directors and his ejection from the rectory to allow the Shrine to hire a new and qualified priest. In count III, plaintiffs sought the suspension of Father Przybylo from his duties with the Shrine. Plaintiffs' request for suspension is based on the fact that a complaint alleging sexual improprieties was filed against Father Przybylo. Plaintiffs alleged that it is the practice of the Roman Catholic Church to suspend its clergy while charges like those in the Cook County action are being investigated. Plaintiffs alleged that the remaining defendants breached their fiduciary duties as members of the Shrine's board by failing to suspend Father Przybylo when the Cook County action

-4-

No. 2--06--0884 was brought to their attention. As relief, plaintiffs requested that Father Przybylo be suspended from his duties pending the Shrine's investigation and resolution of the Cook County action. Plaintiffs also sought a money judgment against the other named defendants for losses or expenses incurred, or to be incurred, defending Father Przybylo against any claims arising out of the Cook County action or any similar suit. On April 21, 2006, plaintiffs filed an emergency petition for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs alleged that, at a regularly scheduled board meeting of the Shrine, defendants improperly amended the minutes of previous meetings by removing references to certain unspecified actions and statements. Plaintiffs also alleged that defendants improperly removed the secretary of the board because she objected to the improper amendments to the minutes of previous meetings. Plaintiffs further alleged that defendants refused to take any action in response to this lawsuit. Plaintiffs requested the prevention of further actions of the board pending the outcome of this action, the prevention of the removal of the Shrine's monetary and religious assets, the appointment of a receiver to secure the assets of the Shrine, the suspension of Father Przybylo from his duties, and the removal of Father Przybylo from any property owned by the Shrine. On April 24, 2006, the trial court denied the petition. On May 26, 2006, defendants filed a motion to strike the sexual misconduct allegations and to impound the copy of the Cook County complaint, contending that the Cook County action had been improperly filed, had not been resolved, and thus amounted to little more than gossip. About a week later, on June 1, 2006, defendants filed separate motions to dismiss the complaint pursuant to sections 2--615 and 2--619 of the Code. In the section 2--615 motion to dismiss, defendants asserted, among other things, that plaintiffs had not included the Shrine as a necessary party and had

-5-

No. 2--06--0884 not sufficiently pleaded damages to entitle them to relief. In the section 2--619 motion to dismiss, defendants asserted that (1) plaintiffs lacked standing to prosecute their claims, because they were not currently members of the Shrine and (2) the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine precluded the trial court from deciding the issues raised in plaintiffs' complaint, because, essentially, they involved matters of church governance and doctrine. On August 10, 2006, the trial court heard argument on the three pending motions. The trial court granted with prejudice both the section 2--615 and the section 2--619 motions to dismiss and denied defendants' motion to strike and impound. The trial court reasoned that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine set forth in Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 49 L. Ed. 2d 151, 96 S. Ct. 2372, prohibited civil courts from resolving disputes involving religious law and polity. The trial court reviewed the relief requested in each of the three counts, noting that count I challenged the qualifications of Father Przybylo and sought to nullify the employment contract; that count II requested the trial court to review the membership rolls and determine who was properly a voting member of the Shrine, along with invalidating all elections beginning with the January 2006 election; and that count III requested the trial court to suspend Father Przybylo from his duties as pastor and as board member of the Shrine. The trial court stated that, in counts I, II, and III, the Shrine had disputes with plaintiffs that would require the trial court "to look at [the Shrine's] Constitution and its rules and apply those rules to determine the outcome" of those counts. Additionally, the trial court reasoned that the case presented "a matter which I believe is not a readily decidable issue involving property. *** This [case], however, does involve the interpretation of the congregation's Constitution and the intervention into its internal affairs, all three counts." The trial court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine precluded it from further

-6-

No. 2--06--0884 involvement in the matter. The trial court further found that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the claims in the complaint, owing to their expulsion from the membership of the board of the Shrine and from the membership of the Shrine itself. Thus, the trial court granted with prejudice the section 2--619 motion to dismiss. Turning to the section 2--615 motion to dismiss, the trial court did not clearly articulate the facial defects in the pleading that it discerned, but it nevertheless granted with prejudice the motion. Plaintiffs' counsel immediately asked the trial court whether plaintiffs should bother filing a motion seeking leave to amend the complaint; the trial court stated that such a motion would be unavailing. Plaintiffs timely appeal. We note that, on appeal, plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in denying them leave to amend, apparently based on this exchange. We believe, however, that in substance plaintiffs are actually asserting that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice, and we shall proceed with our analysis of plaintiffs' contentions with this understanding. On appeal, plaintiffs contend that the trial court relied on the affirmative matters that provided the basis for the section 2--619 motion to dismiss in granting the section 2--615 motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs dispute the trial court's findings that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine bars its involvement and that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the complaint. Plaintiffs also contend that the trial court erroneously dismissed the action with prejudice instead of allowing plaintiffs the opportunity to further plead. We review de novo a trial court's decision to grant a section 2--615 motion to dismiss. Oldendorf v. General Motors Corp., 322 Ill. App. 3d 825, 828 (2001). A section 2--615 motion to dismiss "attacks the legal sufficiency of a complaint by asserting that it fails to state a cause of action

-7-

No. 2--06--0884 upon which relief can be granted." Oldendorf, 322 Ill. App. 3d at 828. In deciding a section 2--615 motion, the trial court is to consider only those facts apparent from the face of the complaint, matters of which the trial court may take judicial notice, and any judicial admissions contained in the record. Oldendorf, 322 Ill. App. 3d at 828. The trial court will take as true all well-pleaded facts alleged in the complaint along with all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the well-pleaded allegations; the trial court is to view the allegations and inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Oldendorf, 322 Ill. App. 3d at 828. Similarly, we review de novo a trial court's decision to grant a section 2--619 motion to dismiss. Zahl v. Krupa, 365 Ill. App. 3d 653, 657 (2006). A section 2--619 motion to dismiss admits the legal sufficiency of the claims but raises defenses or affirmative matters that defeat the claims. Zahl, 365 Ill. App. 3d at 657-58. The questions presented on review of a section 2--619 motion to dismiss are whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Zahl, 365 Ill. App. 3d at 658. Like a section 2--615 motion, when considering a section 2--619 motion, the trial court is to accept as true all well-pleaded facts and to make all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Zahl, 365 Ill. App. 3d at 658. Finally, whether pursuant to section 2--615 or section 2--619, a complaint should be dismissed with prejudice only if it is apparent that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that will entitle him or her to recover. Village of Roselle v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 368 Ill. App. 3d 1097, 1119 (2006). Where a claim can be stated, the trial court abuses its discretion if it dismisses the complaint with prejudice and refuses the plaintiff further opportunities to plead. Muirfield Village-Vernon Hills, LLC v. K. Reinke, Jr., & Co., 349 Ill. App. 3d 178, 195 (2004). We thus

-8-

No. 2--06--0884 review the trial court's decision to dismiss a complaint with prejudice for an abuse of discretion. Muirfield Village, 349 Ill. App. 3d at 195. Before commencing our analysis of plaintiffs' complaint with respect to defendants' motions to dismiss, we initially address an argument defendants raise on appeal. Defendants urge this court to strike all reference to the Cook County action and to strike from the record the copy of the Cook County complaint appended to plaintiffs' complaint. We note that defendants did not file a motion in the trial court to that effect and they did not file a cross-appeal on that issue. Accordingly, we hold that defendants' request is not properly before us on appeal and decline to consider further defendants' contentions on the issue of the Cook County action. Before engaging with the intricacies of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, we briefly deal with the trial court's alternate basis for dismissing the complaint with prejudice pursuant to section 2--619 of the Code: plaintiffs' standing. The trial court held that plaintiffs lacked standing to maintain this action. Below, defendants argued, and the trial court accepted, that plaintiffs pleaded no direct injuries different from those that other members would have experienced. Plaintiffs concede that they have attempted to bring derivative claims on behalf of the Shrine for the conduct they alleged in their complaint. Defendants further reasoned that, because plaintiffs were expelled from the Shrine, they no longer had any standing to bring either individual or derivative actions involving the Shrine. The trial court apparently adopted this rationale, holding that plaintiffs lacked standing because they had been expelled from membership of the Shrine's board of directors and from membership of the Shrine itself. We find this to be error. Plaintiffs' expulsion occurred, according to the affidavit submitted with defendants' section 2--619 motion to dismiss, in May 2006. This action was filed April 18, 2006, before the expulsion

-9-

No. 2--06--0884 occurred. At the time the action was filed, plaintiffs were members of both the Shrine and its board of directors. Defendants point to no authority that would retroactively divest plaintiffs of standing in light of actions that defendants had undertaken after a suit had been filed. We hold that plaintiffs had sufficient standing to bring either individual or derivative claims and that the trial court erred in dismissing this action for plaintiffs' lack of standing. We now consider the trial court's application of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. The first amendment to the United States Constitution provides in part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ***." U.S. Const., amend I. The ecclesiastical abstention doctrine is rooted in both the free exercise and the establishment clauses of the first amendment. See Presbyterian Church in the United States v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440, 449, 21 L. Ed. 2d 658, 665, 89 S. Ct. 601, 606 (1969); J. Nowak & R. Rotunda, Constitutional Law

Download Bruss v. Przybylo.pdf