Diocesan bankruptcy: good for victims?
October 23, 2006, 5:57 am
Posted by Grant Gallicho
According to plaintiffs’ attorney Lynne Cadigan in Tuscon, yes.
“We were very skeptical and we initially thought the bankruptcy was
just one more way to scam the victims,” she said. “Financially and
emotionally it was a good tool to heal the (victims). I don’t like
admitting that, but it’s true.”
Since there are no comments on this thread perhaps I am not the only one who didn’t understand the point of that article?
What’s good in Tuscon for victims (read justice) may not be good in davenport or elsewhere.
It’s reported today that the sex abuse trial of retired Bishop Soens of Souix City, scheduled for davenport, is now indefinitely on hold due to the bankruptcy filing.
Each situation should be jusdged by the particular facts
What is the connection between diocesan bankruptcy and justice?
Honestly, I don’t get it.
I see no evidence that the bankrupcy in Portland (in Oregon) has done any good for the victims (or anyone else, for that matter).
In answer to Donna’s question about bankrupcy and justice, a possible connection might be that the bankrupcy moves disputes out of the adversarial system of lawsuits to a system that is under the direct control of the bankrupcy court/judge. Among other things, that probably makes for less delaying tactics, and penalizes attempts at hiding documents and other evidence.
I believe some of the regular commentors are law professors, so I may be set straight very quickly.
Donna–
Perhaps this is what was meant by the attorney in Tucson when she said the diocese’s filing for bankruptcy proved to be good for her clients.
When the diocese filed for bankruptcy, a trustee was likely appointed by the court to oversee the diocese’s financial reorganization. Not only would the diocese have had to have disclosed all of its financial assets and debts in a public forum, but it would have also have had to go to the court to obtain permission to make expenditures (e.g., salaries, etc.) to keep the administration of the diocese going. In addition, anyone with a claim against the diocese would have had to have filed the claim by a date certain. Failure to file would bar the claim.
With the diocese’s financial records exposed, the attorney and her clients were able to make an assessment about how much $$$ the diocese had, what its other financial obligations were, etc. This financial information would have helped plaintiffs and their counsel to formulate a settlement demand. Not only would the settlement have to be accepted by the docese, but it would also have needed the court’s approval, and the court has the difficult job of weighing all the competing claims and coming up with a plan that allows payment of claims without destroying the diocese’s ability to function and eventually regain full financial health.
Is this “justice”? That’s an amorphous concept, but apparently the attorney in Tucson “who doesn’t like the Catholic Church” thought so.
Gene–
I didn’t want you think I was trying to set you straight. I’m not a law professor, and I didn’t see your post before I posted mine. I think you and I say the same thing anyway. Yours is just more succinct and to the point. Besides, someone will likely set me straight. ;)
If you are not straight, it is not possible for someone to “set you straignt.”
;<)
(Mea culpa .. I just couldn’t resist doing that)
Wish I had a witty reply, Jimmy Mac, but I don’t. :)
Ah, thank you, Bill and Gene. Now I get it.
The only good thing about the diocesan bankruptcy is that the church gets poorer, and maybe by becoming poorer, it can get closer to Christ, and its original purpose.