J.S.H. v. J.S.
AC 15-P-1607
| Mass. App. Ct. | Mar 1, 2017Background
- Plaintiff (founding president/executive director of a religious-based nonprofit supporting abused women) filed a G. L. c. 258E harassment prevention complaint and affidavit on March 14, 2014 alleging defendant sent a disparaging February 27, 2014 letter to a board member, followed by multiple harassing e-mails and an intimidating presence in the church parking lot.
- An ex parte judge issued a temporary c. 258E order effective March 14–25, 2014; the plaintiff did not attach the letter or e-mails to the initial affidavit.
- At a contested hearing on the expiration date, the plaintiff produced the February 27 letter and two e-mails the defendant had sent to organizational members; the judge declined to extend the order and marked it terminated, directing local law enforcement to destroy local records.
- The defendant moved (Feb. 17, 2015) to expunge all court and statewide registry records of the c. 258E order, alleging the plaintiff committed fraud on the court by misrepresenting that harassing e-mails were sent directly to her.
- A second judge denied the expungement motion; the defendant appealed. The Appeals Court addressed the proper standard for expungement of c. 258E records and whether the defendant met it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a judge may expunge c. 258E records from the statewide registry | Expungement is generally unavailable absent rare fraud on the court; the public interest in maintaining records outweighs removal | Records should be expunged because plaintiff falsified affidavit statements claiming e-mails were sent directly to her and were harassing | Expungement is available only in the rare, limited circumstance of clear and convincing proof that the order was obtained by fraud on the court; defendant failed to meet that standard |
| Whether the plaintiff’s description of the e-mails amounted to fraud on the court | Plaintiff’s affidavit and later testimony were truthful and not part of a deceptive scheme | Plaintiff’s affidavit falsely implied direct receipt and mischaracterized the e-mails as harassing | Court held plaintiff’s statements, while disputed, did not show fabrication, systemic deception, or the egregious conduct required for fraud on the court |
| Whether termination of the order at a contested hearing requires expungement | Termination by denial of extension does not automatically entitle defendant to expungement | Because the order was terminated, defendant is entitled to deletion from the statewide registry | Denial: termination alone is insufficient; expungement requires the fraud-on-the-court showing |
| Scope of judicial authority to expunge c. 258E records | Judge has inherent authority to expunge in narrow fraud-on-the-court cases to protect court integrity | Same—defendant asserts that authority should apply here | Court adopts Adams standard: inherent authority only upon clear and convincing evidence of fraud on the court; applied and defendant failed to prove fraud |
Key Cases Cited
- Vaccaro v. Vaccaro, 425 Mass. 153 (court may retain records of restraining orders in registry to aid judicial/public safety interests)
- Commissioner of Probation v. Adams, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 725 (judge has inherent authority to expunge c. 209A records only upon clear and convincing proof of fraud on the court)
- M.C.D. v. D.E.D., 90 Mass. App. Ct. 337 (distinguishes isolated false allegation from systemic fraudulent scheme required for fraud on the court)
- Wojcicki v. Caragher, 447 Mass. 200 (false testimony alone does not establish fraud on the court absent corruption of judicial process)
- MacDonald v. MacDonald, 407 Mass. 196 (examples of fraud on the court include bribery, influencing court officers, or counsel participation in fraud)