Santa Fe, New Mexico – A recent ruling by a bankruptcy judge in New Mexico has highlighted the complexities involved in enforcing legal agreements in church bankruptcies concerning clergy sex abuse claims. This summer, Judge David Thuma denied a motion brought by Mela LaJeunesse, a claimant in the bankruptcy case involving the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, setting a precedent loaded with potential implications for similar cases nationwide.
In June 2021, LaJeunesse’s attorney argued before the court that the Archdiocese was obligated under its reorganization plan to update a list of clergy accused of abuse by including names cited in Chapter 11 case filings. The core of the dispute revolved around a 142-word covenant, part of an eight-page stipulated agreement, which was ambiguously phrased according to Judge Thuma, providing evidence of the challenges posed by vague legal language in such sensitive matters.
LaJeunesse, who claimed she was sexually abused in the 1950s by a priest identified in her complaint as Fr. Richard Spellman, sought to have Spellman’s name added to the archdiocese’s publicly disclosed list of credibly accused clergy. Despite receiving compensation through a settlement trust earlier this year, the inclusion of Spellman’s name on the list was not realized.
The court’s denial was based on several legal nuances, including the interpretation of the covenant in question. The Archdiocese counter-argued that they did not relinquish control over the credibly accused list to an automatic updating process without thorough review by their established Independent Review Board.
Legal standing also played a crucial role in the proceedings. The Judge agreed with the Archdiocese’s view that LaJeunesse, as an individual, did not possess the needed legal standing to enforce the non-monetary covenant. It was determined that such enforcement could only be undertaken by the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, a body that represented the interests of abuse claimants during the bankruptcy but had ceased operations following its conclusion.
Judge Thuma’s acknowledgment of the covenant’s ambiguity underscored further dilemmas, noting that if individuals not credibly accused could potentially be named, it would undermine the significance of the list. His decision supported the Archdiocese’s approach of requiring a detailed review, by qualified personnel, prior to adding names to ensure the list remained a reliable document reflecting grievous offenses.
The constraints posed by the language of the covenant were frustrating to attorneys representing abuse claimants. Levi Monagle, representing LaJeunesse, indicated that the outcome might have been the same regardless of any continued involvement of the Creditors Committee, given the central issue dwelled upon textual interpretation.
The resolution in this particular case does not, however, bring closure to other related concerns, such as the omission of fifty additional names cited by other claimants during the bankruptcy proceedings. The ambiguity and potential oversight continue to raise questions about the transparency of the Archdiocese’s handling of abuse allegations.
Furthermore, the Archdiocese’s reluctance to engage with inquiries regarding these additional claims remains a point of contention. Monagle suggested that while no further actions are planned regarding LaJeunesse’s claim, other enforcement aspects of the Plan are being monitored closely.
As stakeholders watch closely, it becomes increasingly clear that the ongoing challenge for church entities involves not just addressing past abuses but doing so in a manner that supports legal clarity and survivor validation. This recent ruling by Judge Thuma not only brings a particular case into focus but also casts a spotlight on the broader legal frameworks governing church bankruptcy and abuse claim settlements, signaling a need for meticulously precise legal drafting in future agreements.