PATRICK ANTOS V DIOCESE OF LANSING
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK ANTOS,
UNPUBLISHED
November 15, 2005
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
DIOCESE OF LANSING, BISHOP CARL F.
MENGELING, BISHOP JAMES MURRAY,
ARCHDIOCESE OF SANTA FE, ARCHBISHOP
MICHAEL JAROBE SHEEHAN, ROBERT F.
SANCHEZ, f/k/a ARCHBISHOP ROBERT F.
SANCHEZ, THE SERVANTS OF THE
PARACLETE, ARCHDIOCESE OF DETROIT,
CARDINAL ADAM JOSEPH MAIDA, and
BISHOP THOMAS GUMBLETON,
No. 262137
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 04-413121-NZ
Defendants-Appellees,
and
JASON B. SIGLER, f/k/a FATHER JASON
SIGLER,
Defendant.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Smolenski and Zahra, JJ.
SMOLENSKI, J. (dissenting).
Because plaintiff’s complaint adequately pleaded facts, which could establish that
defendants participated in a civil conspiracy to aid and abet the commission of criminal sexual
conduct by defendant Sigler and concealed the nature and extent of their involvement in that
civil conspiracy, I conclude that the trial court’s grant of summary disposition under MCR
2.116(C)(7) was premature. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
In the present case, the trial court granted summary disposition in favor of defendants on
the sole basis that his claim was barred by the applicable period of limitations. Summary
disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) is appropriate where the plaintiff’s complaint is barred by
immunity. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). While a party may
support a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(7) by affidavits, depositions, admissions, or other
-1-
documentary evidence, no party is obligated to present such support. Id. at 119. However,
unless the movant submits documentation contradicting the contents of the complaint, they must
be accepted as true. Id.
Plaintiff’s cause of action is premised on the theory that defendants engaged in a civil
conspiracy. A civil conspiracy “is a combination of two or more persons, by some concerted
action, to accomplish a criminal or unlawful purpose, or to accomplish a lawful purpose by
criminal or unlawful means.” Mable Cleary Trust v Edward-Marlah Muzyl Trust, 262 Mich App
485, 507; 686 NW2d 770 (2004). In addition, a civil conspiracy claim must be based on an
underlying actionable tort. Id. In his complaint, plaintiff alleged that “Defendants by acts of
commission and by acts of omission, did knowingly, intentionally, conspiratorially and in
concert with one another, aid and abet in the ongoing acts of sexual abuse perpetrated against
Plaintiff . . . .” Hence, plaintiff sufficiently alleged that defendants engaged in a conspiracy to
aid and abet the commission of the crime of criminal sexual conduct.
While plaintiff’s cause of action would normally have to be brought within three years of
the occurrence of the underlying injury, see MCL 600.5805(10), if a person who is or may be
liable for any claim fraudulently conceals the existence of the claim or of any person who is
liable for the claim, the action may be commenced within two years after the person entitled to
bring the action discovers or should have discovered the existence of the claim or the identity of
the person who is liable. MCL 600.5855. In order to take advantage of this tolling provision, the
plaintiff must plead in his or her complaint the acts or misrepresentations that comprised the
fraudulent concealment. Doe v Roman Catholic Archbishop, 264 Mich App 632, 643; 692
NW2d 398 (2004).
In addition to alleging that defendants conspired to aid and abet the commission of the
criminal sexual conduct, plaintiff further alleged that, thereafter, defendants continuously and
affirmatively misrepresented and concealed the information relating to Sigler’s sexual
misconduct and, in this way, concealed their various roles in the conspiracy. Plaintiff further
alleged that, because of this ongoing conspiracy to conceal the defendants’ roles, he did not and
could not have learned of defendants’ culpability under his civil conspiracy theory until 2002.
Defendants have not rebutted these allegations through the submission of documentary evidence
in support of their motion. Therefore, because plaintiff sufficiently alleged that defendants
fraudulently concealed the information necessary for plaintiff to realize that he had a civil
conspiracy claim against defendants, and this allegation must be taken as true, Maiden, supra at
119, summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) was prematurely granted.
Furthermore, this case is readily distinguished from the situation in Doe, supra. Under
the plain language of MCL 600.5855, the period of limitations is tolled for any claim where the
person who may be liable conceals the existence of the claim from the person entitled to sue on
the claim. Thus, each claim must be independently evaluated to determine whether the tolling
provisions of MCL 600.5855 apply. In Doe, the plaintiff alleged causes of action based on
negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. at 643. Based on the elements of
those individual claims, the Court in Doe concluded,
. . . plaintiff has failed to allege a claim of fraudulent concealment that avoids the
applicable statutes of limitation because plaintiff’s causes of action were not
concealed from him, i.e., he knew or should have known all the essential elements
-2-
of potential causes of action against defendant at the time of his injury. This is
not so simply because plaintiff knew he was sexually abused by Burkholder. This
is so because of the entire constellation of facts that were known or should have
been known to plaintiff at the time the abuse occurred. [Id. at 644.]
In this case, it is not apparent that plaintiff knew or should have known all the essential elements
of his civil conspiracy claim. While plaintiff clearly knew about the underlying criminal conduct
and was aware that one or more defendants might be indirectly liable for that conduct, it does not
necessarily follow that plaintiff knew or should have known that defendants conspired to aid and
abet the commission of the sexual abuse.
For these reasons, I would reverse and remand for further proceedings.
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.