Home / Articles / A Jersey Shore Retreat Center Just Lost

A Jersey Shore Retreat Center Just Lost a $3 Million Abuse Verdict. Here Is What It Means for Other Claims

A Cape May County jury awarded $3 million to a woman who says she was abused as a teenage volunteer at a Marianist retreat center in the 1970s, even though the jury cleared the religious order of direct liability for the assaults themselves. With three more cases from the same facility still waiting to be tried, here is what the verdict actually decided and what it can mean if you are weighing a claim of your own.

Abuse Justice Center · 2026-07-25 · 6 min read

Reviewed by Abuse Justice Center · Updated 2026-07-25

Key takeaways

  • A jury in Cape May County, New Jersey ordered a Marianist-run retreat center to pay $3 million to a woman who says she was abused there in 1974, while she is separately asking the court to add roughly $750,000 in prejudgment interest.
  • The jury found the religious province was not liable for the underlying assaults, a reminder that institutional abuse verdicts can be a mix of wins and losses on different legal theories argued in the same trial.
  • Neither man accused of the abuse was named as a defendant in the civil case, which is common once an accused individual has left ministry, cannot be located, or has no assets worth pursuing.
  • Five lawsuits have now been filed against the same retreat center since 2021, with three more still waiting for a trial date, meaning this verdict may only be the first data point survivors and families see.
VERDICT REACHED
The Cape May Retreat Center Case, By the Numbers
$3 million
jury award for emotional trauma
$750K
additional prejudgment interest requested
5
lawsuits filed against the center since 2021
3
remaining cases still awaiting trial

Figures drawn from Cape May County trial coverage and reporting on the retreat center's abuse litigation.

What the Jury Actually Decided

The case centered on a woman who says she was abused as a teenage volunteer at a small Marianist-run retreat property on the New Jersey shore back in 1974. After a trial in Cape May County, the jury returned a $3 million award for her emotional trauma. Her attorneys have also asked the judge to tack on close to $750,000 in prejudgment interest, a routine step meant to account for the decades between the abuse and the payout.

What makes the outcome more complicated is that the same jury declined to hold the Marianist Province itself directly liable for the assaults. In plain terms, jurors separated two questions: did the abuse happen and cause real harm, and was the province legally responsible for it in the specific way the case was argued. Splitting those questions is more common than people expect, and it does not mean the survivor lost. It means one legal theory succeeded while another did not.

Why the Accused Men Were Not Sued Directly

The lawsuit accused a former priest and a religious brother of committing the abuse between 1974 and 1982, but neither man was ever named as a defendant in the civil case. That is a detail people often find confusing, but it is standard practice. An accused individual may have already left ministry, moved away, died, or simply have no meaningful assets to collect from, so survivors' attorneys instead pursue the institution that employed, housed, or supervised the accused person.

That shift in target does not weaken a claim. Institutions can be sued for their own conduct, not just for standing behind an individual, including how they screened, supervised, or responded to warning signs about someone in their care. The Marianist Province, for its part, said in a statement that it respects the judicial process and has since put safeguarding policies in place across its ministries, while stopping short of admitting fault in this particular case.

More Cases Are Still Waiting in Line

This is not an isolated dispute. Court records show five separate lawsuits have been filed against the same retreat center since 2021, all involving the same two accused men and overlapping time periods. Three of those cases have not yet gone to trial, which means the facility, and survivors watching from the outside, may see additional verdicts, and possibly different outcomes, in the months ahead.

For survivors who have not yet come forward, a pattern like this can matter. Multiple lawsuits describing similar conduct at the same institution over an extended stretch of years can help establish that problems were known, or should have been known, well before any one case reached a courtroom.

What This Means If You Are Considering a Claim

A mixed verdict like this one is not a reason to assume institutional abuse claims are too hard to win. It is a reminder that these cases often hinge on how the claim is framed: negligent supervision, failure to screen employees or volunteers, ignoring prior complaints, or covering up known misconduct can all be argued even when the accused individual is never sued directly.

If something similar happened to you at a church, retreat, camp, school, or other institution, the fact that decades have passed, that the accused person is gone, or that one legal theory failed in someone else's case does not automatically close the door on yours. A confidential conversation with an attorney who handles these claims can help you understand what evidence exists and what your options actually look like today.

5 Things to Understand Before Filing an Institutional Abuse Claim

Verdicts like this one raise real questions for anyone weighing whether to come forward. These are the basics worth knowing before you talk to an attorney.

  1. You do not need the accused person as a defendant: Civil claims against an institution can proceed even if the accused individual is deceased, missing, laicized, or judgment-proof.
  2. A mixed verdict is still a real outcome: Juries can award damages on one theory while rejecting another in the same case; that split does not erase the harm they found was real.
  3. Old abuse is not automatically time-barred: Revival windows and extended filing deadlines in many states now let survivors bring claims from decades ago.
  4. A criminal conviction is not required: Civil cases use a lower burden of proof, so a case can move forward even without criminal charges against anyone.
  5. Multiple lawsuits against one institution can help your case: A documented pattern of similar allegations can support arguments that leadership knew, or should have known, about a risk.
  6. Most attorneys handling these cases work on contingency: You typically pay nothing upfront, and fees come only from money recovered if your case succeeds.

Abuse Justice Center is a lawyer-matching and advocacy service, not a law firm, and nothing here is legal advice. Matching and consultations are free, and network attorneys work on contingency. Need support now? The RAINN hotline is 800-656-4673, 24/7.

Related

FAQ

What Survivors Ask Us

No. Many institutional abuse claims proceed against the organization that employed or supervised the accused person, especially when that individual cannot be located, has died, or has no assets to pursue.

Not necessarily. Every case depends on its own facts, evidence, and legal theory. A mixed verdict in one case does not decide the outcome of another, even against the same institution.

Many states have expanded or eliminated filing deadlines for childhood sexual abuse claims through revival windows, so a case that once seemed too old to pursue may still be eligible. An attorney can check your state's current rules.

Updated policies do not erase past liability. A claim looks at what the institution knew and did during the relevant time period, not what it does today.